Midgley, James - Social Welfare in Global Context-Sage Publ. (1998) PDF

SOCIAL
WELFARE
IN
GLOBAL
CONTEXT
To Michelle, Lolita, and Alison
SOCIAL
WELFARE
IN
GLOBAL
CONTEXT
JAMES MIDGLEY
SAGE Publications
InternationalEducationaland ProfessionalPublisher
Thousand Oaks London New Delhi
Copyright © 1997 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publisher.
For information address:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: order@sagepub.com
SAGE Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A4PU
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
M-32 Market
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Midgley, James.
Social welfare in global context / James Midgley.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-7619-0787-4 (cloth): acid-free paper). — ISBN
0-7619-0788-2 (pbk.: acid-free paper)

1. Public welfare. 2. Human services. 3. Social policy.
4. International cooperation. I. Title.
HV31.M45 1997
361—dc21 96-51210
98 99 00 01 02 03 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Acquiring Editor: Jim Nageotte

Editorial Assistant- Kathleen Derby
Production Editor: Astrid Virding
Production Assistant: Denise Santoyo
Typesetter/Designer: Danielle Dillahunt
Cover Designer: Candice Herman
CONTENTS
Preface ix
Introduction xi
Globalization and Social Welfare xiii
The Scope of This Book xv
P A R T I. I N T E R N A T I O N A L S O C I A L W E L F A R E
A N D THE G L O B A L SYSTEM
1. The Field of International Social Welfare 3
The Notion of Social Welfare 4

Key Social Welfare Institutions 6
The Subject of International Social Welfare 9
Key Terms and Terminologies 9
History of International Social Welfare Research 10
Approaches to Studying International Social Welfare 12
Reasons for Engaging in International Social Welfare 14
The Challenge of International Social Welfare 17
Methodological Challenges 17
Professional Challenges 19
2. The Global World System 21
The Nature of Globalization 22
The Rise of the Nation State 23
Discovery of the World System 27
Dimensions of Globalization 30
The Division of the World 34
The Ideology of Internationalism 37
History and Forms of Internationalism 37
PART II. THE ANALYSIS OF

I N T E R N A T I O N A L SOCIAL WELFARE
3. Social Conditions in Global Context 43

Measuring Social Conditions 44
Social Progress and Social Welfare 47
Social Progress in the Industrial Countries 48
Social Progress in the Former Communist Countries 51
Social Progress and Social Welfare in the Third World 53
Global Social Conditions Today 55
Social Conditions in the Industrial Nations 55
Social Conditions in the Former Communist Countries 57
Social Conditions in the Third World 59
4. Social Welfare Around the World 68

Nonstatutory Social Welfare: A Global Overview 69
Nonformal Social Welfare Around the World 69
Global Philanthropic Effort 71
Social Work in International Context 73
Commercial Social Welfare: A New International Trend? 74
International Social Development 75
State Social Welfare in International Context 76
Evolution of State Welfare 77
Industrial Countries and State Welfare 79
State Welfare in the Former Communist Countries 82
The Third World and State Welfare 85
5. Theories of State Welfare 89

Representational Theories of Social Welfare 90
The Welfare State Construct 90
Typologies of State Welfare 92
Limitations of Typologies of State Welfare 95
Theories of the Origins and Functions of State Welfare 97
Social Conscience and the Humanitarian Impulse 98
Citizenship Theory 99
Functionalism, Industrialization, and Welfare 100
Interest Groups and State Welfare 103
Marxist Theories 104
Diffusion Theory 107
Normative Theories of State Welfare 108
6. The Impact of State Welfare:
An International Assessment 111

State Intervention and People's Welfare 113
Impact in the Industrial Countries 113
Impact in the Former Communist Nations 117
Impact in the Countries of the Third World 119
Effects of Government Social Welfare on the Economy 121
Negative Economic Effects 122
Positive Economic Effects 126
Effects of State Social Welfare on Equality 129
Social Welfare and Class Inequality 129
Social Welfare, Gender, and Ethnic Inequality 131
7. Social Change and the Future of State Welfare 134
The Crisis of State Welfare 135

The Golden Age of State Welfare 136
The Collapse of the Welfare Consensus 138
The Radical Right and the Welfare Crisis 140
Normative Interpretations,
Social Change, and State Welfare 145
The Future of State Welfare 149
The Pessimists: Responding to the Crisis 149
The Optimists: Maturity and
Irreversibility in State Welfare 152

The Reconstructionists:
Advocating Welfare Pluralism 154
PART III. APPLIED I N T E R N A T I O N A L SOCIAL WELFARE
8. Social Work in International Context 159
The Nature of Professional Social Work 160

Historical Development 162
International Features of Social Work 164
Internationalization 164
Global Features of Social Work Education 167
International Characteristics of Social Work Practice 170
Issues in International Social Work 173
The Challenge of Social Justice 173
The Search for Professional Identity, Roles, and Functions 175
International Exchanges in Social Work 177
9. International Social Development 180
Features of the Social Development Approach 181

History of Social Development 183
Strategies for Social Development 187
Institutional Approach 189
Organizational Framework 190
Promoting Human Well-Being
Through Economic Development 192

Promoting Economic Development
Through Social Welfare 196

Issues and Controversies in Social Development 199
10. International Collaboration in Social Welfare 203
Forms of International Collaboration 204

Evolution of International Collaboration 205
Official Intergovernment Agencies 207
The International Voluntary Sector 210
Examples of International Social Welfare Collaboration 212
Promoting the Weil-Being of Women 212
Responding to the Refugee Crisis 215
Collaboration in Social Security 217
Issues of International Social Welfare Collaboration 220
References 225
Index 237
About the Author 245
PREFACE
I wrote this book specifically to meet the need for a textbook in the field of
international social welfare. It is primarily intended for students of social work,
social administration, and social policy but should also be relevant to students in
other subjects such as sociology, public policy, and economics and also to profes-
sionals working in these fields. Of course, it is not the first book on the subject.
Indeed, as will be shown, a substantial literature on international social welfare is
now available. However, much of it focuses on issues of comparative social policy,
describing welfare provisions in different countries and examining theoretical
concerns at the international level. Much of this work is rather abstract, or
otherwise based on complex statistical analyses of social provisions in different
countries. There is clearly a need for a textbook that seeks to provide a broad
overview of the field and that caters to the needs of professionals. Very little has
previously been published on applied international social welfare, and the interests
of practitioners have clearly been neglected.
By including a section on applied international social welfare, I hope that the
book will meet the needs of those who are interested in issues of policy and practice
in the international context. The book devotes a section to issues of social work
practice, social development, and the activities of international agencies that are
seeking to foster greater collaboration in international social welfare. However,
IX
IH i U U A L WELFARE IN GLOBAL CONTEXT
the book also contains chapters dealing with key theoretical debates in the field as
well as descriptive chapters that seek to provide a comprehensive account of world
social conditions and social welfare institutions. It is hoped that the inclusion of
material on these diverse aspects will indeed produce a comprehensive work that
will be helpful to students and others interested in the subject.
While I had contemplated the need for a textbook of this kind for some time, it
was largely at the instigation of three of my colleagues at the Office of Research
at Louisiana State University that it came to fruition. In the Spring of 1996,
Michelle Livermore, Lolita Perkins, and Alison Neustrom-Scott encouraged me to
offer a graduate seminar in international social welfare at the School of Social
Work at LSU and to use the opportunity to write the book. They also assisted with
library research and good advice. The completion of the manuscript in September
1996 is largely due to their support and encouragement. I am in their debt and have
dedicated the book to them. I would also like to thank the other members of the
seminar for their useful comments and suggestions.
The book was written while I served as Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
at Louisiana State University. I would like to thank my Vice Chancellor, Harvill
Eaton, for his encouragement. LSU created a conducive environment for my work,
and as I move to Berkeley, I remember my years in Louisiana with fond nostalgia.
I am grateful to my many colleagues at LSU who provided a stimulating environ
ment for my work.
The book has benefited from the incisive comments of Fred Ahearn, former
Dean of the National Catholic School of Social Service in Washington, D.C., and
Michael Sherraden, Benjamin E. Youngdalh Professor of Social Development and
Director of the Center for Social Development at Washington University in St.
Louis, Missouri. Their suggestions for improving the book have been very helpful
and demonstrate the benefits of having good friends critically review one's work.
I owe special thanks to Jim Nageotte of Sage Publications for commissioning the
book and for providing support during the time it was being written. Thanks also
go to Kate Peterson, copy editor, and Astrid Virding, production editor. All have
helped to make this book possible and I am grateful.
JAMES MIDGLEY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
INTRODUCTION
Globalization, or internationalization as it is also known, is an increasingly

important feature of modern life. Although the term is not well defined, it is
widely used to connote a process of global integration in which diverse peoples,
economies, cultures, and political processes are increasingly subjected to inter-
national influences. It also refers to a greater awareness of the role of these
influences in everyday experience. The importance of globalization is now gener-
ally recognized. Indeed, many experts believe that the trend toward increased
international exchanges that characterized the decades following World War I1 will
accelerate.
Some experts believe that the coming century will be a period of even more
rapidly expanding international activity. Just as the late 19th century was known
as the age of science, and the years following World War I1 were known as the
atomic age, they believe that the new century should be called the global age. This
is because the scale of international activity has now reached unprecedented
proportions. Today, people engage in international activities more frequently than
ever before. Earlier generations could not have predicted the ease with which
people travel to other countries; communicate with friends, family members, and
colleagues overseas; and are promptly informed about events in other parts of the
world. Similarly, they are exposed to international influences to an extent that
xi
SOCIAL WELFARE IN GLOBAL CONTEXT
would not have been possible even 50 years ago. It is likely that the process of
globalization will continue and that future generations will be even more affected
by these developments.
The notion of a global age is also fostered by the rapid expansion in communi
cations and information technologies. Many experts believe that the information
revolution is driving the process of globalization. Just as industrialization pro
pelled and solidified the nation state in the 19th century, so information technology
now fuels the inexorable trend toward globalization. While the role of information
technology is crucial in understanding the changes that have taken place, the role
of economic and political forces is even more important. As will be shown in
Chapter 2, global integration is today propelled by wider economic, political,
social, and cultural forces.
Of course, it is true that human beings have always been influenced by interna
tional events. Wars, trade, and imperial expansion have impinged on their lives for
many centuries. However, the extent of international contacts, and the impact of
international events on the lives of ordinary people, is unprecedented. And most
take these activities for granted. People in small American towns watch television
news reports about conflicts in Africa, make international calls to family members
on vacation in Europe, drive cars manufactured in Japan, or go out to eat foods
originating in other countries without even thinking about it. Exposure to interna
tional events is not limited to the Western industrial nations. Today, rural villagers
in India are familiar with the latest trends in European pop music, know about
sensational murder trials in the United States, and are in regular communication
with family members who work in other countries.
Despite the ease with which people now engage in international activities, few
appreciate the extent to which they live in an interdependent world. Even fewer
recognize the long-term implications of globalization. However, many people do
realize that their lives are being affected by international events over which they,
their communities, and even their governments have little control. People in the
industrial nations have become aware that jobs in manufacturing industry are
declining as corporations invest in countries where lower-paid workers produce
goods at lower cost than in Europe or North America. Many are also aware that
international conflicts in different parts of the world have repercussions at home.
In the past, wars in the Middle East have resulted in higher oil prices, increases in
inflation, and financial instability. Conflicts in different parts of the world now
regularly have an impact on the lives of people in countries that are not directly
involved.
However, despite the growing awareness of the role of international events in
domestic affairs, few people really grasp the extent to which the process of
globalization will in the future supersede domestic economic activities and limit
the efforts of national policy makers to direct local economic processes. Similarly,
despite the growth of international migration, few people appreciate the degree to
which population movements will increase and how diverse previously homoge
neous communities will become. Few recognize that future generations may one
day feel little attachment to the countries in which they were born and instead have
an international identity that transcends national loyalties.
For many people, these prospects are deeply troubling. The possible loss of a
locally rooted cultural identity, the inability of national governments to resist
Introduction
international economic forces, and the continued immigration of people with

different languages and beliefs into local communities is often viewed with
apprehension. Despite these concerns, people will have to adapt to the changes that
are taking place. Although these changes will probably result in increased tension,
conflict, and economic difficulties, the process of globalization will continue
inexorably, and those who are able to adapt are most likely to benefit. Those who
understand the process of globalization will be best equipped to deal with its
changes and exploit the opportunities it offers.
It is for this reason that many universities today are providing more instruction
in international affairs. Business schools, colleges of liberal arts, and schools of
public policy now place much more emphasis on international curriculum content
than ever before. International events are no longer regarded as the purview of
specialized academic units, such as schools of international relations, but as an
increasingly important component of a student's general education. It is likely that
most universities will in the future require all students to have a solid grounding
in international affairs so that they will be better equipped to deal with global
realities. In addition to enhancing international course content in the liberal arts
curriculum, specialized fields such as engineering, science, and medicine will also
place much more emphasis on international content. Indeed, this is already hap
pening in fields such as business, where most faculty members now recognize that
an education in business studies is hopelessly incomplete unless students are
educated to understand the role of globalization in the commercial and industrial
worlds.
G L O B A L I Z A T I O N A N D SOCIAL WELFARE
Social welfare institutions are also being affected by the processes of globalization.
Previously, social welfare activities took place at the community and national
levels. Religious and philanthropic welfare institutions have historically existed
at the local level. By the 19th century, these institutions were established at the
national level, and their activities were soon augmented by the expansion of state
welfare programs by national governments. Indeed, the provision of government
welfare may be viewed as a property of the nation state, and it is perhaps
appropriate that the study of social policy should have focused on national
activities. However, government social programs are being extensively influenced
by global forces today. Economic and political changes arising from globalization
are having a direct impact on these programs. In addition, many social problems
that government programs have conventionally addressed at the domestic level are
also being influenced by these forces. Similarly, social problems arising from
migration, conflict, and other international events demand responses that transcend
the efforts of national governments.
At a more prosaic level, it is also important that students of social work and
social policy know more about the international field not only in the broad sense
of understanding global events but in the technical sense of recognizing how global
forces have a direct impact on social work practice, social administration, and
social policy making in their own countries. It may, at first, seem surprising that
international issues should have an influence of this kind. However, it is not
difficult to find examples of how the international dimension impinges on domestic
social welfare.
One obvious example relates to social work practice with immigrants and their
families. Today, social workers are routinely involved with people who come from
other countries and whose values, beliefs, and attitudes need to be understood if
social work intervention is to be effective. Indeed, many of the problems that
professional social workers deal with are directly attributable to the fact that their
clients are international migrants. Adaptation to a new life, coping with the stresses
of living in a different culture, feeling isolated, and experiencing the risk of being
subjected to racism are problems to which social workers must respond. However,
they can only practice effectively with clients from other countries if they have a
proper grasp of the clients' cultural and social backgrounds and the international
context in which they live.
Another example can be given from the field of social administration and social
policy. In the past, social policy makers in the industrial countries often formulated
proposals for new social programs without paying any attention to the experiences
of their colleagues in other countries. By ignoring these experiences, domestic
policy makers often made costly mistakes. Today, it is much more common for
policy makers to obtain information about innovations in other countries. By
obtaining information of this kind, they have a better idea of the likely costs of the
proposed program, of its potential problems, and of its impact on client groups.
This information is then taken into account when policy proposals are developed
and new programs are implemented.
Although many professionals and academics in the fields of social work, social
administration, and social policy now appreciate the importance of international
issues, they are in a minority. Most of those working in these fields remain poorly
informed about international events, and few are able to use international informa
tion effectively. It is not uncommon for them to regard international social welfare
as an exotic specialism that is interesting but of little direct relevance to their daily
activities. Similar attitudes characterize many schools of social work where inter
national curriculum content has been quite limited and where elective courses on
international social welfare have traditionally attracted only a small number of
students.
This situation will have to change. As was argued earlier, an awareness and
appreciation of the international dimension will have to become a part of the
mainstream. If social workers and social administrators are to cope with the
professional demands placed on them in the new global age, they will have no
choice but to engage more actively in the international field and apply international
knowledge more systematically to their work.
Fortunately, there are signs that the situation is indeed changing. Despite the
limited progress that has been made, social workers, social administrators, and
social policy makers are today better informed about international events than ever
before. They are also exposed to greater opportunities to learn and apply interna
tional knowledge. Today, the literature on international social welfare is expanding
rapidly. International conferences are attracting larger numbers of participants, and
more professionals recognize the need to be exposed to international information.
Introduction XV
Perhaps the most encouraging signs are to be found in professional schools of

social work where faculty members committed to internationalizing the curriculum
have been campaigning to increase awareness of these issues among their col
leagues. In the United States, this has resulted in the inclusion of recommendations
in the Council on Social Work Education's Curriculum Policy Statement that
greater efforts be made to incorporate course content on international social
welfare. If the trend continues, social work students in the future will be far more
familiar with international issues. They will also be more able to incorporate
international information into their professional activities.
It is hoped that these developments will also foster enhanced professional
exchanges among social workers, social administrators, and social policy makers
from different countries. The social problems of poverty, conflict, deprivation,
hunger, and inequality that face the international community today are of such
magnitude and severity that they need to be addressed at the global level. It is
essential that social welfare professionals collaborate more effectively to bring
about improvements in these conditions.
THE SCOPE OF THIS B O O K
The book is divided into three parts. Part I is concerned with international social
welfare and the global system. It examines the nature of international social
welfare as a field o f interest in social work, social administration, and social policy.
It defines key terms and traces the historical development of research in the field.
It reviews various approaches to studying international social welfare and con
cludes with a discussion of some of the methodological and professional chal
lenges facing those who undertake international research. To put international
social welfare into context, the next chapter provides an account of the trend
toward globalization and discusses the issues arising from this phenomenon. It
discusses the emergence of the global system and reviews different theoretical inter
pretations of this phenomenon. It concludes by discussing the ideology of interna
tionalism as a belief system that is relevant to any discussion of globalization.
Part II of the book is concerned with the analysis of international social welfare.
Using the definition of social welfare provided in the first chapter of the book, it
examines global social conditions with reference to trends in different parts of the
world. It shows that despite significant social progress, social conditions in many
regions remain unsatisfactory. An account of the way social welfare is promoted
in different parts of the world is then provided. Although attention is paid to the
different institutions that function to enhance people's welfare, special emphasis
is placed on the role of governments in fostering social welfare. The expansion of
state welfare has been one of the most distinctive and ubiquitous features of social
and political life of the past century. Chapter 5 reviews different theoretical
explanations for the origins and functions of state welfare in the light of the
international evidence. The overall impact of state welfare systems in different
countries is examined in Chapter 6, with special reference to standards of living,
the economy, and equality. Part II concludes with an account of the way govern
ment social welfare is being retrenched in many different parts of the world. It asks
whether this has resulted in an international crisis of state welfare, and it speculates
on what the future for social welfare institutions will be.
Part III of the book deals with issues of applied international social welfare. It
discusses the nature and history of social work in the international context and
examines major challenges facing the profession today. These include the chal
lenge of promoting social justice around the world, the challenge of defining
appropriate roles and functions for social work, and finally, the challenge of
fostering truly reciprocal international exchanges. Chapter 9 discusses social
development as an approach for promoting social welfare. Social development has
made a unique international contribution to integrating economic and social
policies within a dynamic development process. In the final chapter, international
collaboration in social welfare is discussed with reference to the role of the
intergovernment agencies, international voluntary organizations, and international
professional associations. The activities of these organizations are briefly de
scribed and reference is made to the way their services are linked to the work of
national governments and domestic nonprofit groups. Examples are given to
illustrate international efforts in social welfare. These examples are also used to
examine some controversial issues arising from international collaboration.
It is hoped that this broad overview of the field will not only inform but inspire
readers to become more actively involved in the international world of social
welfare. There are many more opportunities to participate in international social
welfare activities today. Although it may not always be possible to attend interna
tional conferences, visit colleagues in other countries, and collaborate on joint
research and program development projects, involvement can be enhanced through
supporting the activities of international development organizations, attending
local meetings on international issues, and even reading about developments in the
field in international journals. Enhanced involvement in international activities of
all kinds will not only increase professional competence but also promote greater
collaboration to improve the welfare of the world's peoples.
PART I
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL WELFARE AND
THE GLOBAL SYSTEM
CHAPTER ONE
THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL

SOCIAL WELFARE
International social welfare is a field of activity concerned with describing,

understanding, evaluating, and promoting human well-being in the international
context. It is characterized by different activities. First, international social welfare
is descriptive because it seeks to offer narrative accounts of social conditions and
social welfare programs in different parts of the world. Second, it is concerned
with analysis. It seeks to analyze and explain the complex causal factors that affect
social conditions and different forms of welfare provision around the world. Third,
the field is normative. It not only seeks to describe and analyze but to provide a
conceptual basis for practice and to examine the effectiveness of social welfare
interventions. Finally, international social welfare is an applied field because it is
concerned with promoting human welfare in the international context.
As will be shown later in this chapter, a sizable descriptive and analytical
literature on international social welfare now exists. Social scientists from differ
ent disciplines have documented the welfare systems of different countries and
have attempted to explain the factors that account for the expansion of government
social programs in different parts of the world. They have not hesitated to engage
in normative commentary, and many have offered evaluative comments on social
welfare programs in different societies. However, the field of applied international
social welfare is not as well developed. It is hoped that this book will make a major
contribution by including a separate section on applied social welfare. Part III
focuses on applied issues, and descriptive, normative, and analytical matters are
covered in Parts I and II.
3
4 INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND THE GLOBAL SYSTEM
Two other aspects of the definition of international social welfare need to be

examined. First, as was noted earlier, the field is concerned with human welfare.
Second, it pursues this concern within the international context. The term interna
tional context refers to the many different countries and regions of the world in
which international social welfare activities are undertaken. The next chapter
focuses on this concept by linking it to the notion of globalization. The term human
welfare will be examined in more detail in this chapter.
To have an adequate introduction to the analytical and applied aspects of
international social welfare that are covered in this book, a number of background
and methodological issues need to be discussed. These issues include the reasons
for studying international social welfare and the various methodological questions
that arise when social scientists seek to undertake research in the field. The
meaning of different terms and the contribution of scholars from different disci
plines who have written about international social welfare also need to be appre
ciated. These aspects will also be dealt with in this chapter.
The field covers many different countries, cultures, and regions of the world. In
addition to being vast, its subject matter is complex. There are many challenges
facing those who undertake research into social conditions and the way social
welfare is promoted around the world. Although international social welfare is a
large subject, readers should not be daunted or deterred from learning more about
it. While this book seeks to cover the material comprehensively, it does not attempt
to do so in great depth. Instead, it seeks to provide a broad, adequate overview of
the field and, it is hoped, will serve as a readable and comprehensible introduction
to the subject.
T H E N O T I O N O F SOCIAL WELFARE
The concept of human welfare needs be understood before its international dimen
sions can be examined. The term is, of course, an old one, but it is still poorly
defined both in academic settings and among members of the public. It originates
from the ancient word farewell, which means to go or be well. In its broadest
meaning, the term means a state or condition of well-being. However, it is today
more frequently used in a narrow sense to refer to charitable activities or to
government social programs for the poor. Used in this way, it has lost its original,
dignified meaning and is now often employed as a term of abuse. Politicians on
the political right often castigate the so-called welfare state and denounce welfare
recipients as being lazy and work-shy.
This book defines the concept of social welfare in its broadest sense. It empha
sizes the idea of social welfare as a state or condition of human well-being. Terms
such as contentment or fulfillment can also be used to describe this condition. It
will be argued that a condition of human welfare exists when individuals, families,
communities, and even societies experience a satisfactory degree of social well
being. The opposite of a condition of social well-being is what Richard Titmuss
(1974) calls "social illfare."
The Field of International Social Welfare 5
It is difficult to define the concept of social welfare in precise terms, and there
have been few attempts to do so. It has both subjective and objective aspects, and
it can be examined either in qualitative terms or by using empirical measures.
Despite these difficulties, the term will be defined in this book as a state or
condition of human well-being that exists when social problems are managed,
when human needs are met, and when social opportunities are maximized.
As was noted earlier, social welfare exists at different levels. Social well-being
is aproperty of both individual and group experience. Acondition of social welfare
can apply to individuals, families, associations, organizations, communities, and
even societies as a whole. A condition of social welfare can also characterize
groups of countries, international regions, or the world as a whole. Of course,
social illfare can also exist at these different levels.
Individuals, families, communities, and societies experience social problems
but differ in the extent to which they manage them. For example, conflicts are
managed quite well by some families, but in others they seriously damage rela
tionships and sometimes result in the disintegration of the family. Crime and
violence are more effectively prevented and controlled in some communities than
others. Similarly, while some societies have implemented policies for keeping the
rate of unemployment down, others have not been able to deal with this problem
effectively. Generally, societies that are able to manage these and other problems
have a higher degree of social welfare than others.
Individuals, families, communities, and societies have social needs that must be
met if people are to experience a state of social well-being. Needs refer to basic
biological survival requirements such as nutrition, safe drinking water, shelter, and
personal safety, but needs also exist at the level of communities and societies.
Today, it is widely agreed that societies need to have adequate levels of education
and health care, harmonious social interaction, and social security if they are to
enjoy a satisfactory condition of social well-being.
Finally, social well-being requires that people have social opportunities to
advance and realize their potential. It is widely recognized that opportunities can
be enhanced by government educational programs, and most countries today invest
extensively in education to promote these opportunities. However, opportunities
vary significantly between different communities and societies. In many countries,
low-income communities have inferior schools and opportunities for advancement
are limited. Similarly, many countries have rigid social barriers that impede
advancement particularly for women and ethnic minorities. These societies are
often characterized by a high degree of discontent. Societies that fail to provide
education, j o b opportunities, and other means by which people can realize their
potential often have high rates of crime and violence as people seek alternative,
illegitimate means for improving their social position. The absence of opportuni
ties is a major cause of social illfare in society.
These three dimensions—the management of social problems, the meeting of
needs, and the enhancement of opportunities—combine in a complex way to
comprise the basic requirements for attaining a condition of social well-being.
When all three are met, it may be claimed that a family, community, or society
enjoys a satisfactory level of welfare. Of course, in keeping with its international
focus, this book will be primarily concerned with social welfare conditions in
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND THE GLOBAL SYSTEM
different societies in different parts of the world and with the way different
societies and international bodies seek to promote social well-being.
These different components of the condition of social welfare can be measured
by using empirical techniques that social scientists have developed over the years.
One technique compares key statistical measures known as indicators, which give
some "indication" of social conditions around the world. Examples of commonly
used indicators are the unemployment rate, the infant mortality rate, the crime rate,
the literacy rate, and statistics relating to life expectancy, school enrollment, and
poverty. High rates of crime, unemployment, poverty, and similar problems are
indicative of a low level of social welfare. The use of indicators to measure social
conditions internationally will be examined in more detail in Chapter 3. Other
techniques such as the social survey will also be described.
Social Welfare Institutions
Conditions of social well-being do not occur of their own accord but require
purposeful efforts by individuals, families, organizations, communities, and gov
ernments. In fact, many people live in conditions of social illfare. Despite the
achievements of the past 50 years, problems of poverty, deprivation, and limited
opportunities persist on a massive scale. Nevertheless, efforts have historically
been made to promote conditions of social welfare. This has been done by
individuals, or by families, communities, and societies. These efforts have resulted
in the emergence of distinct social welfare institutions, which are defined as
organized, culturally established ways of enhancing human well-being. Welfare
institutions are culturally accepted and form an integral element of social life.
Social scientists have identified a number of key social welfare institutions. The
oldest and most pervasive are known as nonformal welfare institutions. These
consist of the numerous day-to-day efforts of individuals, families, and communi
ties that enhance social well-being, as well as culturally obligatory activities
designed to help those in need. For most of human history, individuals and families
have sought to increase their well-being through their own efforts. Labor power
has been the primary mechanism by which they have met their basic human needs.
People have also sought to solve social problems through their own efforts or with
the help of their families, friends, and neighbors. Whole communities have also
engaged in collective efforts to solve problems. Often, these activities are cultur
ally mandated and require family members, friends, and community members to
take responsibility for enhancing social welfare and assisting those in need. It is
this notion of institutionalized obligation that is a major characteristic of the
nonformal welfare system.
Nonformal welfare efforts have resulted in the emergence of formal social
welfare institutions. One of these is religious philanthropy. Religious beliefs
legitimate and give impetus to the welfare activities of individuals and families
and often define the means by which people should engage in charitable acts.
Religious philanthropy is practiced around the world. All the major religions
encourage almsgiving, and in many cases, this practice is governed by precise
rules. Religions also provide a moral code that defines acceptable behavior and
The Field of International Social Welfare
enhances social well-being. In some religions such as Buddhism and Christianity,

the monastic orders assumed responsibility for helping the sick, destitute, mentally
ill, and abandoned. Religious welfare institutions have also contributed to promoting
social opportunities, and in earlier times, education was primarily provided by relig
ious organizations. Today, religious philanthropy is often provided by large organi
zations that engage in charitable activities. These activities are often directed at the
members of specific denominations, but often they cater to other groups as well.
Religious benevolence has been augmented by secular philanthropy. This in
volves the provision of charity by private individuals and organizations. During
the 19th century, secular philanthropy in Europe and North American expanded
rapidly, and many charitable organizations were created to deal with a wide range
of social problems. Secular philanthropy continues to be a very important social
welfare institution today, particularly in the industrial countries where nonprofit
organizations are engaged in many different social welfare activities. Together,
organized religious and secular philanthropy is referred to a voluntary social
welfare. Other terms that are used are nonprofit or nongovernment social welfare.
The voluntary sector is also sometimes known as the third sector.
During this century, the government or the state has assumed a major responsi
bility for promoting social welfare. Government intervention in social welfare has
expanded greatly over the past century, especially in the decades following World
War II. Problems such as poverty, drug abuse, child neglect, homelessness, and ill
health (to name but a few) are now dealt with through government social programs.
In addition to addressing key social problems, government has sought to meet
social needs, and it is the primary provider of education in most countries.
Government social welfare programs are today very extensive not only in the
industrial nations but in the Third World as well. As will be shown later in this
book, international social welfare research has focused extensively on the nature,
extent, and dynamics of state welfare institutions.
When describing state welfare institutions, attention is usually focused on the
major social services. Most textbooks on social welfare describe and analyze what
are known as the "big five" social services. These are income security programs
such as social insurance and social assistance, health services, educational pro
grams, housing, and finally, the social work services. This latter group is also
known as the "personal social services." Although the correctional services,
nutritional programs, family planning, and other social services should also be
included, they are often neglected by social policy writers.
In addition to the formal social services, governments can also affect welfare
conditions through the tax system, or through providing subsidies and incentives.
Titmuss (1958) was one of the first social policy writers to demonstrate that
governments make extensive use of these mechanisms to affect people's welfare.
He showed how tax breaks (fiscal welfare) and incentives to private firms (occu
pational welfare) in Britain have a major impact on the welfare of middle-class
people. Although his analysis is widely cited in the literature, research into social
welfare institutions at the international level has been primarily concerned with
the five major social services, and comparative information about fiscal and
occupational welfare remains limited.
The expansion of government social programs during the years following World
War II was so extensive that many social scientists who study social welfare
neglected the other institutions. Indeed, it was widely believed that state welfare
would replace voluntary and other forms of provision. However, since the 1980s,
the importance of nonstatutory institutions has been recognized, and more atten
tion has focused on the voluntary and nonformal sectors. Many social policy
makers also now believe that the state should not be the only or even the primary
provider of social services. They argue instead that a mix of state, voluntary, and
commercial social programs that operate simultaneously to enhance people's
well-being is needed (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989; Hadley & Hatch, 1981; Johnson,
1987; Rein & Rainwater, 1986; Rose, 1986). This approach is known as welfare
pluralism and is now very popular in social policy circles.
A major innovation in the promotion of social welfare was the emergence of
professional social work in the mid- 19th century. Social work was an entirely new
approach to dealing with social problems. For the first time, professionally trained
personnel were available to assist individuals and their families to deal with their
problems. The appearance of social work was compatible with the emergence of
professionalism in the Western industrial nations at the time. Social work is the
best example of a professional social welfare institution, but other social welfare
functions such as education and health care are now also provided by professional
groups. Today, social work is well established as a profession, and in addition to
helping individuals and families, social workers are engaged in other activities that
promote social welfare, including community organization, residential care, social
service administration, and social planning. In addition, professional groups of
social administrators and social policy makers who work in government agencies
have also emerged. Examples include the American Public Welfare Association
and the British Social Policy Association.
In recent times, particularly in the United States and some European countries
such as Britain, commercial enterprises also provide social welfare services.
Unlike voluntary organizations, they do so on a for-profit basis and they are
motivated by commercial rather than altruistic concerns. The role of for-profit
social welfare is controversial and raises ideological issues. While many believe
that social welfare should not be driven by commercial considerations, others
believe that efficiency is increased when the profit motive rather than altruism and
state intervention governs social intervention.
Another approach for promoting human well-being is social development.
Social development differs from the other approaches by seeking to link social
programs directly with a dynamic process of economic development. While the
other approaches tend to neglect economic aspects, the proponents of social
development argue that social welfare can best be enhanced by harnessing the
power of economic growth to create employment, generate incomes, and raise
standards of living. At the same time, they believe that remedial and consumption-
based social welfare programs need to be augmented by interventions that foster
economic development. While they recognize that remedial and maintenance-
oriented social programs will always be needed, they contend that these programs
now dominate social policy and that a shift in emphasis toward productivist social
welfare is needed.
These different social welfare institutions all operate to enhance the well-being
of individuals, families, communities, and societies. They function in complex
ways to affect people's welfare and are the subject of much research in social
welfare today. They are also the focus of international social welfare investigation
and will be examined again in the subsequent chapters of this book. Indeed, much
of the rest of the book is devoted to discussing issues related to the way these
different institutions promote people's social welfare in different parts of the
world.
THE SUBJECT OF
Describing, analyzing, evaluating, and promoting human welfare in the interna

tional context is the subject of the field of international social welfare. It answers
the question, "what do social scientists who engage in international social welfare
do?" To have a fuller understanding of the field, it is also necessary to ask who
these social scientists are, how they study the field, and finally, why this activity
is important. This section seeks to answer these questions. It describes the work
of social scientists who undertook pioneering research in the field and reviews the
methods and approaches they used. Some of the reasons for engaging in interna
tional social welfare research are discussed. As will be shown, research in the
subject is not motivated only by curiosity and an adventurous interest in distant
lands but by the important objectives of enhancing knowledge and promoting the
effectiveness of social welfare interventions in different parts of the world. But
first, some of the key terms used in international social welfare need to be defined.
Key Terms and Terminologies
Many different terms have been used in international social welfare, but they
are poorly defined. Terms such as comparative or cross-cultural or cross-national
social welfare have frequently been employed as a synonym for international social
welfare. In addition, the suffix social welfare has also been interchanged with
terms such as social policy or social work. In fact, the terms comparative social
policy and international social work have been widely used in the literature.
Although both terms have an obvious association with professional activities, this
is more the case with social work than social policy where international research
has been largely concerned with theoretical issues. International social welfare is
much broader and covers social policy investigation as well as social work
practice. As shown in this book, the term covers both analytical and applied
activities. To complicate matters further, the term global is gaining currency and
is now more frequently used in the literature.
Lynne Healy (1995a) has attempted to clarify the different meanings of these
terms, and although it is unlikely that definitional issues will be resolved, her
commentary is useful. She points out that the term international is a broad,
umbrella term that refers to comparative accounts of social welfare activities in
many countries. The term cross-national is sometimes used interchangeably but
more frequently refers to two or a small number of countries. Cross-cultural

emphasizes activities relating to different cultures, but this may not involve
international activities since these cultures may be located within one country. The
term comparative is also used as a synonym for international, but it has a strong
methodological connotation and stresses the analysis of welfare phenomena.
Finally, global has the widest meaning of all, referring comprehensively to welfare
activities that affect the planet as a whole.
History of International
Social Welfare Research
International activity in social welfare has been pursued for many years, but
most of it has been of a professional nature. Academic activity is a fairly recent
innovation. Indeed, it is probably only since the 1970s that research into the social
welfare institutions of different countries has been undertaken on a regular basis.
On the other hand, organized international professional contacts in the social
welfare field can be traced back to the 19th century when philanthropists in Europe
and North America met at international conferences to exchange ideas and expe
riences (Friedlander, 1975). These contacts led to the creation of international
voluntary associations such as the International Council on Social Welfare in 1928.
Social work began to organize professionally at the international level in 1929 with
the establishment of the International Association of Schools of Social Work.
These activities were augmented by the creation of the official intergovernment
organizations concerned with social welfare issues. The first of these was the
International Labor Organization, which was established in 1919 to promote
improved labor relations and employment conditions. The organization also sought
to encourage the adoption of social security. After World War II, the United Nations
and a number of specialized official agencies concerned with international social
welfare were established.
The first academic studies in the international social welfare field were descrip
tive. One of the earliest, which is of considerable historical importance, is Lucy
Mair's (1944) study of social welfare in the British colonies. Other early examples
of international research are to be found in the reports of international agencies
such as the United Nations and the International Social Security Association.
Professional associations such as the International Association of Schools of Social
Work have also been active in the field. International journals, such as Interna
tional Social Work and the International Social Security Review, have also been
publishing information about international social welfare for many years. Also
relevant are the studies undertaken by international consultants who have advised
the governments of developing countries on the creation of new social programs.
A good early example is the work of Titmuss and his colleagues in Mauritius, where
they advised the government on its social policies (Titmuss, Abel-Smith, & Lynes,
1961).
It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that studies of international social
welfare began to appear regularly. Several of these studies sought to explain why
government intervention in social welfare had expanded so significantly in the
20th century. One early example of this type of research is Gaston Rimlinger's
(1971) analysis of the influence of industrialization on the emergence of state
welfare in Europe, America, and Russia. Other early studies provided comparative
case studies of the social welfare systems of different countries. Examples are the
pioneering studies by Barbara Rodgers and her colleagues (Rodgers, Doron, &
Jones, 1977; Rodgers, Greve, & Morgan, 1968) and Hugh Heclo (1974). Single-
country case studies designed to provide formative information about social
welfare in countries about which very little was known were also published. A
good early example is Bernice Madison's (1968) account of the welfare system of
the Soviet Union. Some early studies were less concerned with describing the
welfare systems of different countries and focused instead on social welfare issues
in the international context. A good early example of this approach is Everett
Kassalow's (1968) edited book on the role of social security in economic devel
opment. Another good example is Titmuss's (1971) comparative study of blood
donation from which he drew conclusions about the nature of altruism and its
relationship to social policy. Another approach favored statistical analysis. Using
quantitative data collected by governments, some investigators such as Henry
Aaron (1967) used statistical procedures to analyze the different variables that
affected the expansion of government social welfare.
Today, academic activity in the field of international social welfare has expanded
very rapidly, and many books, articles, and reports have been published. Before
the 1970s, it was rare to find books describing the social programs of other
countries. During the 1980s, the field expanded rapidly, and studies of countries
as diverse as China (Dixon, 1981) and Nigeria (Onokerhoraye, 1984) were pub
lished. In recent years, books about social welfare in Germany (Clasen & Freeman,
1994), South Africa (Patel, 1992), and Hong Kong (C. Jones, 1990), to name but
a few, have appeared. In addition to single-country case studies, comparative
accounts that synthesize information about particular countries or regions of the
world have become available. They include studies of social policy in Eastern
Europe and the developing countries (Deacon, 1992; H. Jones, 1990).
Scholars who have undertaken research into international social welfare come
from many different disciplines including sociology, political science, and eco
nomics. They also come from interdisciplinary subjects including social policy and
administration, social work, and public policy. That so many different academic
subjects are involved creates the advantage of generating insights from very
different perspectives. On the other hand, it has resulted in fragmentation. Soci
ologists, political scientists, and economists are focused on particular aspects of
international social welfare, and the knowledge they have generated has not always
been transferred to others. Often, international investigators in one discipline
remain ignorant of studies undertaken by researchers in other fields. It is rare, for
example, for sociologists or political scientists to read let alone cite the compara
tive publications of academic researchers in social work or social policy. Although
these different disciplines allow for highly specialized research to be undertaken,
more needs to be done to ensure that conventional academic disciplinary bounda
ries do not limit the dissemination of important new knowledge.
Most international academic research into social welfare is today undertaken by
social scientists working in the interdisciplinary field of social policy. Social policy
emerged in Britain in the 1950s specifically to study the welfare state. The first
professor in the field was Richard Titmuss, who was appointed to this position at
the London School of Economics in 1950 (Reisman, 1977). Although Titmuss was
recruited to head the school's Department of Social Science and Administration,
founded in 1911 to train social workers, he was more interested in promoting
scholarly inquiry into the way the British government's social services operated.
He was also interested in studying the impact of the social services on people's
welfare, and the values and beliefs on which they were based. Titmuss drew widely
on academic ideas from sociology, economics, and political science. He wrote
extensively about the welfare state, and his many books are still read. Although he
focused mostly on British social policy, he was also very interested in international
issues. He analyzed and commented on social programs in the United States, and
he was one of the first academics to advise the governments of developing
countries on the formulation of their social policies. At the time of his death in 1973,
the subject of social policy was well established not only in Britain but in other
countries as well, and the value of international research was widely accepted.
Although social workers are now also extensively involved in international
social welfare, the contribution of professionals has been neglected by academics
working in international social welfare. Scholars in sociology, political science,
and other so-called pure academic disciplines pay little attention to the knowledge
and experiences of practitioners. While their commitment to pure research should
not be minimized, their reluctance to involve themselves in applied issues has
detracted from their contribution. Their scientific knowledge would be enhanced
by collaborating with professionals who have extensive practical experience of the
field. Fortunately, academic social workers are now writing about international
activities more frequently than before, and it is hoped their work will increase
knowledge about professional social welfare activities at the international level.
Approaches to Studying
International Social Welfare
As was suggested earlier, the field of international social welfare is vast,

covering many different phenomena in a large number of countries. To comprehend
the subject, scholars have focused on different aspects of the field, and they have
used different methodological approaches to pursue their research. It is useful to
review these different methods as well as the different aspects they have singled
out for analysis.
One approach has been to examine social welfare conditions in the international
context. Because governments now routinely collect data on health, life expec
tancy, education, income, housing, and other social conditions, researchers have a
vast store of statistical information to draw on. These data are collected in a
systematic form by the World Bank, the United Nations, the International Labor
Organization, and other intergovernment agencies, and it is relatively easy for
comparisons of social conditions in different parts of the world to be made. This
approach has also resulted in the development of composite indicators of social
welfare, which permit researchers to formulate international profiles of social
conditions in different parts of the world.
Statistical analyses of comparative welfare conditions have been accompanied

by quantitative analyses of what is known as welfare effort. This approach focuses
on government social welfare activities in different countries. Much of this
research has been concerned with public expenditure on the social services and is
intended to identify those factors that account for different degrees of government
effort. Using sophisticated statistical techniques, this research has now generated
a rich body of findings about the factors that determine the extent of government
involvement in social welfare. However, as will be shown in Chapter 4, the notion
of welfare effort can be broadened to include the contribution of nonstatutory
institutions in promoting people's welfare as well.
Another approach seeks to compare the major social services internationally.
This research has focused on public provisions in the fields of social security,
health care, housing, education, and the social work or "personal" social services.
A great deal of international research of this kind has now been published. It ranges
from studies of one social service such as social security in several countries
(Kaim-Caudle, 1973) to comparative studies of the whole social service systems
of different countries (Friedmann, Gilbert, & Sherer, 1987; Kahn & Kamerman,
1980; Thurz & Vigilante, 1975, 1976).
In addition to studying different human service provisions, there are variations
in the numbers of countries that are covered. At one extreme are single-country
case studies that, as was noted earlier, provide information about the welfare
systems of societies for which little information was previously available. These
studies are not technically international in scope but fall into the category of
international social welfare because they are written for readers in English-speaking
countries such as Britain or the United States and provide information about
countries that are distant or interesting (Dixon, 1981; Madison, 1968; Onoker
horaye, 1984; Patel, 1992). However, most international studies of the social
services deal with several countries. Some compare only two or three but many
deal with five or more. Usually, these studies focus on countries with similar
characteristics, such as the Western industrial nations, or on regional grouping,
such as the countries of Latin America or Eastern Europe (Deacon, 1992; Dixon
& Macarov, 1992; Dixon & Scheurell, 1990).
Irrespective of whether they deal with the total welfare systems of several
countries or focus only on one nation or one type of social service provision, many
international studies are distinguished by their use of a case study approach. This
research is essentially descriptive even though many investigators do seek to
identify general features, trends, and policy implications from the case study
material. While they provide solid factual information on which speculative
theoretical development can be based, this is generally not the case, and most are
primarily concerned with documenting the origins of the social services, describ
ing their key functions, and examining their wider social, economic, and political
implications. There are exceptions, such as Rimlinger's use of country case studies
to analyze the role of industrialization in promoting government involvement in
social welfare, but usually the case study approach is primarily descriptive rather
than analytical.
A good deal of international social welfare research does not begin with descrip
tive case studies but instead uses comparative material selectively to support
particular theoretical or normative arguments. Scholars who use this approach use
whatever comparative information they can find to either validate or refute gener
alizations. This approach is known as the method of selective comparisons.
Titmuss (1971,1974) was perhaps the leading exponent of this technique. He made
frequent use of international information to support his normative views about the
desirability of state intervention in social welfare, and he was particularly persua
sive when he contrasted the positive features of the British welfare state with the
residualist approach that dominates social policy in the United States. However,
his technique was heavily criticized by international investigators for being biased
and unscientific. As Catherine Jones (1985) points out, moral crusading is not the
same as rigorous analysis based on the careful assessment of comparative data.
Many other methodological purists have also criticized the use of the selective
comparisons technique. They often argue that the case study approach is the best
and most rigorous way of proceeding (Jones, 1985; Rodgers et al., 1977).
Nevertheless, the technique of using selective comparison is widespread in
international social welfare research. Despite criticisms, it has permitted broad,
interesting, and incisive analyses to be undertaken. While it may not be metho
dologically rigorous, the conclusions reached are subject to refutation in the same
way as is case study material. Proponents of the selective comparisons approach
also point out that it permits a larger number of countries to be covered. Instead
of being limited to a few country case studies, it permits theoretical and normative
analyses to extend over whole classes of countries. Using the selective comparison
approach, international investigators have formulated broad theoretical and nor
mative propositions about whole groups of countries. This would not be possible
if they were restricted to particular case studies. It is not surprising that most
studies of social welfare in the developing countries have used this technique
(Hardiman & Midgley, 1989; MacPherson, 1982; Midgley, 1984b).
Reasons for Engaging in

International Social Welfare
It may seem self-evident that it is desirable to become involved in international

social welfare. There is much to be gained from interacting with international
colleagues and learning how social welfare systems function in other countries.
Most people will agree that it is very interesting to meet professionals from other
nations. Those who have been able to attend international conferences point out
that they have benefited from sharing ideas with people from different parts of the
world. However, personal enrichment is not a sufficient condition for devoting
time and resources to international activities. If a case is to be made for including
more international content in the curriculum of schools of social work or depart
ments of social policy, more persuasive reasons must be given. If travel money is to
be allocated to permit a policy maker to travel to another country, employers will want
to know what the agency, rather than the staff member, will derive from the trip.
There are sound reasons for engaging in international social welfare that tran
scend the personal benefits that accrue to those who are involved in the field. As
was noted in this book's Introduction, the trend toward globalization will require
new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Those who have the ability to function in the
international field will be better able to cope with the demands and opportunities
of globalization. It is vital that social workers, social administrators, and policy
makers be able to function effectively in this new world system.
First, involvement in international social welfare can enhance knowledge about
the social conditions and welfare systems of other countries. Compared to many
other social science disciplines, social work and social policy are relatively new
fields and both need to increase their knowledge base. Much knowledge building
in the field has taken place in a few Western industrial countries such as Britain
and the United States, where these subjects originated. Fortunately, studies of
social conditions and social welfare institutions in other countries are now pub
lished with greater frequency than before. This trend will undoubtedly continue
and enrich the growing body of knowledge about social welfare in different parts
of the world.
The enhancement of knowledge about social conditions and welfare institutions
in different nations is not only an important goal in its own right but has positive
implications for future research in the field. For example, the search for correct
knowledge requires that theoretical propositions be widely tested. International
comparison allows propositions to be examined with reference to information
obtained from many countries. This not only promotes the production of valid and
useful knowledge but facilitates the reformulation of hypotheses and theories. For
example, explanations of the reasons for expanded government intervention in
social welfare during this century have been based largely on studies undertaken
in the United States and Britain. As more international evidence has been collected,
these explanations have been found to be inadequate, and more sophisticated
accounts based on more extensive international evidence have emerged. Clearly,
international studies of this kind enhance the evolution of a subject that is still
theoretically underdeveloped.
This has important normative implications. If propositions are accurate, they
can foster the development of programs that have a greater positive impact on
people's welfare. A good example of how international knowledge has helped in
the development of more effective social programs comes from the field of
HIV/AIDS research. Through the activities of the World Health Organization and
other international bodies, much more is known about HIV infection. Research in
the field would not be as developed if there had been no mechanism for sharing
knowledge internationally. Another example comes from the field of child welfare.
The worldwide dissemination of research about the incidence of child sexual abuse
undertaken in the United States has helped to create a far greater awareness of this
problem in societies where the subject would not have been raised because of a
cultural reluctance to discuss the issue openly.
Another important normative implication of international social welfare re
search is that it permits statements about social welfare to be substantiated or
refuted. For example, it is often claimed that the United States cannot afford its
public welfare system. Opponents of government welfare programs argue that the
costs of these programs have added excessively to the federal government's budget
deficit, which is destroying the country's economy. They point out that while it
may be socially desirable to provide Medicare and social security for elderly
persons, the country simply cannot meet such a high level of social spending.
However, these statements lose much of their urgency when examined in the
international context. Readily available international data reveal that the federal
deficit is not excessively high by international standards and that the country is
not a high spender when it comes to social programs. Indeed, the United States
spends less on social welfare than most other industrial countries including many
that have a far better record of economic growth. As this example reveals,
international knowledge can be effectively used to test normative statements about
social programs.
Second, involvement in international social welfare is also an effective means
for improving social welfare interventions. Social work practice as well as social
policy development can be strengthened when international experiences about
social programs are shared between professionals in different countries. Profes
sionals in social work, social administration, and social policy can benefit enor
mously by learning from the experiences of their international colleagues.
One benefit of sharing information internationally is that new and potentially
more effective social interventions can be discovered. By monitoring program and
policy developments in other countries, policy makers may discover entirely new
ways of meeting social needs and dealing with social problems. The potential
usefulness of these innovations to other countries can then be reviewed and
adapted. There have been numerous international exchanges of this kind. In the
19th century, social reformers in the United States copied the Charity Organization
Society approach when seeking to ameliorate the problems of urban poverty in
American cities. The Settlement House was also a British innovation that was
transplanted to the United States at about the same time. In the 20th century,
American casework and community organization were, in turn, exported to Britain.
The developing countries have also copied Western social welfare approaches.
However, when learning from other countries, it is important that the appropriate
ness of proposed innovations be carefully assessed and that they be adapted to fit
local conditions.
Another benefit of sharing information internationally is that it helps adminis
trators and policy makers to evaluate the likely effectiveness of interventions. It
also permits them to assess the costs of these interventions. Too often, new social
programs are implemented without adequate knowledge of the impact they are
likely to have or of the difficulties they are likely to encounter. For this reason, it
is now more common to implement new programs on a pilot or demonstration
project basis. However, there is value in studying the way similar programs operate
in other countries. This permits broader comparisons to be made.
Social interventions should always be carefully evaluated to determine whether
they meet their stated goals in cost-effective ways. Although much evaluation
research focuses only on the program being evaluated, there is an advantage in
introducing comparative information into evaluation designs. Social interventions
can be much more effectively assessed if they are not only tested in one but in
different sites. The findings of evaluations of this kind obviously have far more
value and applicability. This value is further increased when programs are evalu
ated internationally.
Finally, engagement in international social welfare can help to promote profes
sional development in the field. It is increasingly recognized that the promotion
of social welfare is not only dependent on the goodwill of charitable people but
that it requires the intervention of professionally trained personnel. Social work is
today the best established social welfare profession, but professional groups of
social policy makers and administrators have also emerged.
International collaboration can strengthen existing professional associations and
promote their development. This, in turn, makes professional intervention more
effective and helps foster the ultimate goal of promoting human welfare on a global
scale. Professional development increases the exchange of knowledge about social
welfare issues and promotes the sharing of information about the effectiveness of
social interventions. However, professional development also furthers the goal of
promoting social welfare. Well-organized international professional groups can
exert a positive influence on governments and intergovernment organizations.
They can campaign against social injustice and promote the adoption of interven
tions that effectively address pressing social problems. Although professionalism
in social welfare has often been criticized, effective professional organization in
the international context can bring positive results.
THE CHALLENGE OF
As the preceding discussion has attempted to show, engagement in international

social welfare is not only exciting and rewarding, but there are many sound reasons
for encouraging greater involvement in the field. However, international social
welfare is not a straightforward matter. Indeed, it is characterized by complex
methodological difficulties that impede research in the field and often make it difficult
to reach broad, scientifically accurate conclusions. There are other challenges of a
more practical nature that relate to professional activities. Nevertheless, these
challenges are matched by many opportunities and rewards. Although the benefits
of engaging in international social welfare far outweigh the difficulties, the
challenges facing international scholars and practitioners need to be understood.
Methodological Challenges
Because international social welfare is grounded in scientific knowledge, it is

obviously important that this knowledge be accurate. Many international investi
gators have stressed the need for methodological approaches that ensure accuracy
of information. As was noted earlier, the use of selective comparisons as a
methodological approach has been heavily criticized for fostering conclusions of
questionable validity. However, many writers do not worry unduly about methodo
logical questions and proceed to make statements of apparent international validity
even though these claims may be based on doubtful premises.
There is legitimate concern about the accuracy of the statistical data on which
much international research depends. Investigators such as Richard Estes (1984,
1988) who have undertaken extensive analyses of empirical data to study global
social conditions, have cautioned that while general conclusions can be drawn
about international trends in social welfare, many international data are unreliable.
He points out that these data are often based on estimates rather than systematic
and rigorous techniques of collection. James Midgley (1988b) has made a similar
observation about poverty data for Third World countries that has been collected
through income surveys. Although it is extremely difficult to obtain accurate
information about the incomes of peasant farmers and other low-income groups,
analyses of poverty trends often reach purportedly valid conclusions without even
mentioning the accuracy problem. To make matters worse, studies of the global
incidence of poverty often compare studies undertaken at very different times. It
does not make sense to compare the incidence of poverty between different nations
when national studies may vary by as much as five or even ten years.
Another problem that is seldom mentioned in comparative research concerns the
difficulty of defining terms and operationalizing the object of international inves
tigation. A good example of this problem comes from studies of social security.
Although the International Labor Organization has produced a standard definition
of social security, the term is used to mean different things in different countries.
In the United States, for example, social security refers to the federal government's
old age retirement, survivor, and disability social insurance program. In Britain,
on the other hand, the term includes social assistance, unemployment benefits, and
other income security programs. These programs are not known as social security
in the United States. In Latin America, the term social security is even broader,
including health care and other provisions. Obviously, the lack of a standard
definition presents a serious challenge to researchers who want to compare social
security programs around the world. Unless this problem is resolved, it is difficult
to reach accurate conclusions about many aspects of social security in the interna
tional context.
Some experts such as Rodgers and her colleagues (1968,1977) have pointed out
that the problem of standardizing formal definitions of social provisions is only a
small part of the wider problem of truly understanding different societies and
comparing them. They contend that the comparative analysis of apparently obvious
facts is clouded by subjective interpretations, cultural nuances, and hidden mean
ings that can only be understood by those who are immersed in the cultures of these
societies. For this reason, Rodgers favors the cautious use of case studies that
analyze the welfare systems of particular countries in depth and with great
sensitivity. While she believes that this approach has limitations, it offers the best
prospect of collecting useful information. Echoing these sentiments, Jones (1985)
criticizes social policy writers who reach conclusions based on flimsy evidence.
As noted earlier, she has been particularly critical of the use of selective compari
sons by writers such as Titmuss. This technique, she argues, amounts to the
"pillaging" of scientific information for moral ends.
While a concern with methodological accuracy can be excessive and, if taken
too far, can preclude any viable comparative research, caution is needed because
there are many problems of a methodological nature that affect the accuracy of
conclusions. However, it is likely that these problems will only be resolved in the
longer term when data collection methods become more accurate and when more
information about international social welfare has been collected. It is likely that
efforts to resolve methodological problems will be more successful as the field
expands. Although international investigation cannot wait for methodological

difficulties to be resolved, caution is obviously required.
Professional C h a l l e n g e s
As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, international social welfare is not
only concerned with studying social welfare institutions in different societies but
with promoting improvements in human well-being in different parts of the world.
This latter aspect of the field involves the professional interventions of social
workers, social administrators, and social policy makers. However, their involve
ment also raises issues that need to be addressed.
If professionals are to engage effectively in international social welfare, they
need to be properly prepared for the task. Effective involvement in the field
requires more than an adventurous spirit and a desire to travel to distant lands. It
requires knowledge as well as skills. To be effective, social workers, social
administrators, and policy makers need to have a sound theoretical as well as
factual knowledge of the field. They also need to be sensitive to the cultural
preferences of people in other countries. Effective professional engagement re
quires that cultural differences be understood and respected. The nuances of
intercultural contact also need to be appreciated. Visitors to other countries often
do not realize that their words, behaviors, and even gestures can be offensive or
be misunderstood. Proper preparation is vital for effective involvement.
A major issue concerns the nature and scope of international professional
collaboration. There has been much discussion in the literature about the transfer
of social innovations from one country to another. While it has already been
mentioned that increased collaboration and the transfer of information is a positive
benefit of international social welfare, some writers have been critical of unilateral
transfers in which the social policies and programs of one country or group of
countries are viewed as being superior and worthy of emulation. This issue has
been raised with particular reference to the developing countries where the ten
dency to adopt uncritically the social programs of the industrial countries has been
widespread. This practice has had negative implications for social policy develop
ment in the Third World where social security, health care, housing, and social
work have all been criticized for being unsuited to the economic, cultural, and
demographic realities of these societies (Hardiman & Midgley, 1989; MacPherson
& Midgley, 1987). Today, there is much more awareness of the problem, and
greater efforts are being made to formulate social policies and programs that are
appropriate to local needs and circumstances. Fortunately, the promotion of reci
procity and mutual respect are key professional concerns in international social
work today (Midgley, 1990a, 1994c).
The promotion of reciprocity needs to be accompanied by greater opportunities
for professional collaboration. Social workers and social administrators in the
industrial nations have the resources to travel, and they have long dominated the
international associations. Although efforts have been made to ensure the active
participation of colleagues from other countries, more needs to be done if interna
tional professional development is to take place on a truly global scale. One

problem that needs to be addressed is the dissemination of information about the
activities of professional colleagues in less accessible parts of the world. Interna
tional journals need to encourage and facilitate the publication of research findings
from many more countries than is presently the case. International conferences
need to ensure that colleagues from all over the world are able to attend and
participate.
Renewed efforts are also needed to encourage colleagues in the industrial
countries to become interested in the field. Social workers, social administrators,
and social policy makers in these societies need to be better informed about
international events. They need to understand the way these events impinge on
their daily activities. International exchanges need to be encouraged, and welfare
professionals need to become more involved in the activities of international
professional associations. These associations should also be strengthened so that
they are better able to exert international influence. Despite the growth of interest
in international activities, commentators such as Healy (1995a) have claimed that
social workers in the United States are less involved in international activities than
before. Ways must be found to revitalize their commitment. Steps should also be
taken to enhance the international engagement of professionals in other countries.
Through a commitment of this kind, welfare professionals will be better equipped
to cope with the demands of the coming global age and to facilitate global
improvements in social welfare.
CHAPTER TWO
THE GLOBAL WORLD SYSTEM
The Introduction to this book suggested that the intensity and scale of international
activity have now reached unprecedented proportions. While people have always
been subject to international influences, these influences impinge on people's
experiences to an extent that could not previously have been imagined and they
engage in international activities to a greater extent than ever before.
These changes have been brought about by a process that social scientists call
globalization. Globalization was defined in the Introduction as a process of global
integration in which diverse peoples, economies, cultures, and political processes
are increasingly subjected to international influences and people are made aware
of the role of these influences in their everyday lives. Although the term interna
tionalization is also used to describe this process, the former term is now preferred.
Globalization has a more inclusive connotation than internationalization. When
social scientists talk about globalization, they refer not only to the activities that
foster increased contacts between people in different countries but to the emer
gence of an inclusive worldwide culture, a global economy, and above all, a shared
awareness of the world as a single place. Some believe that in the global age, people
will have a truly international perspective that spans different communities,
cultures, and nations and easily accommodates a multiplicity of economic, politi
cal, and social situations. The process of globalization also connotes the emergence
of a common human identity. Some social scientists believe that as globalization
increases, a consciousness will emerge among the world's peoples that they are
not only members of disparate local communities, discrete ethnic groups, or
sovereign nation states but part of a single human family.
Those who favor the emergence of a global system of this kind are known as
internationalists. As will be shown later in this chapter, internationalism is an
21
ideology that has relatively few followers. Many people vigorously reject the idea
that national identity should be subsumed under some global system. Many others
do not oppose increased international cooperation but are concerned about the
negative implications of globalization. The proponents of internationalism need to
address these concerns and show why they believe that the nation state is not the
most desirable form of social, cultural, and political organization.
The chapter begins by examining some of the factors that have promoted
globalization. It traces the historical events that are responsible for this trend and
discusses the process with reference to its political, economic, technological, and
social components. It also reviews the writings of social scientists who have
studied the process of globalization and examined its impact. The chapter then
offers a descriptive account of the way the world and its nation states have been
classified over the years. In the past, the world's nation states have been grouped
in different ways. Since a knowledge of these categories is obviously important
for understanding international social welfare, different classifications of the
world's nation states will be reviewed.
Finally, the chapter discusses internationalism as an ideology. It examines the
emergence of internationalism and reviews the arguments of those who favor the
current trend toward greater globalization. It also inspects the arguments of those
who oppose or question the internationalist position.
Because a field such as social welfare inevitably involves values and ideologies,
these issues need to be examined.
THE NATURE OF GLOBALIZATION
The phenomenon of globalization is the result of centuries of social, economic,

and political change that has gradually fostered the emergence of the modern world
system. The roots of globalization are ancient. Indeed, it may be claimed that the
process of globalization began thousands of years ago when people of different
cultures first came into contact with others through migration, trade, or conquest.
Since the 15th century, global integration has been hastened by European mercan
tile trade and imperial conquest. However, it is only in recent times that these
processes have accelerated to the point where a truly global system has emerged.
The processes that have fostered the emergence of a global system have been
extensively studied by social scientists. Their research has shown that these
processes are exceedingly complex and that they have been influenced by diverse
factors. Some social scientists have highlighted the role of technologies and
particularly the recent explosion in the use of information technologies in fostering
globalization. Others have placed more emphasis on economic factors, arguing that
trade and other economic pursuits have enhanced global contacts. Others believe
that political factors are critically important. They argue that the international
exercise of power has driven the process of globalization. While these and other
factors have all played a role in fostering globalization, it is important to recognize
that the process has evolved over many centuries. Indeed, a historical perspective
offers the best means for understanding this process.
The Global World System 23
For most of human history, people lived in small, relatively integrated local
communities. Anthropologists report that the oldest of these communities were
composed of people who subsisted by hunting or fishing or by consuming edible
fruits and plants. These hunter-gatherers were usually nomadic, moving from place
to place in search of food. In time, some groups learned to domesticate animals
and to use these animals for sustenance. Known as pastoralists, they were also
nomadic, moving from place to place to find suitable grazing for their flocks. In
time, the domestication of plants created new, settled communities that engaged
in farming. Settled agriculture became the dominant form of production in the
world economy. For thousands of years, farming has provided the primary source
of income for most people. Even today, as industrialization and economic modern
ization displace agricultural activities, the majority of the world's people continue
to live in rural communities where agrarian economic activities predominate.
For centuries, most people were born, lived their lives, and died in the same
rural, agrarian community. Most had limited contact with the outside world, and
few left their villages to find work in other places. Contact with the outside world
usually occurred when local people were conscripted to fight wars or when they
traveled on religious pilgrimage or engaged in trade with other communities.
Generations may have passed before rural communities as a whole were affected
by external events; war and conquest were the most common of such events.
Established rural communities often changed dramatically when a foreign con
queror imposed a new cultural or political system on local people.
Agricultural communities were often conquered and subjugated by groups of
warrior nomads. The warrior nomads often settled in the community, establishing
themselves as a new ruling class of chiefs or nobles. Although they retained their
superior status, they often assimilated with the local people. In some cases, they
lived separately in fortified castles or in larger population centers from which they
ruled and extracted tribute from their subjects. With further conquest, and en
hanced economic exploitation, these population centers grew into towns and cities.
In many cases, these cities served as the centers of new empires.
Human history has been characterized by the rise, consolidation, and decline of
empires. In some cases, these empires were quite small, but in others they
subjugated large territories and diverse populations. Imperial rule or imperialism,
as it is also known, is distinguished by the extension of political control over people
of different languages and cultures. Imperialism is an ancient phenomenon that
dramatically affected the process of cross-cultural and international contact and
led ultimately to the emergence of the modern world system.
The Rise of the Nation State
The ancient empires of China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome were
characterized by their domination over people of different languages, beliefs, and
cultures. While the imperial rulers exerted cultural influence over these people,
they did not always require them to adopt their own culture. Even when religious
conversion took place, local languages and attitudes often remained impervious to
change.
The distinctive cultural groups that continued to exist within the wider frame
work of imperial rule have been designated by modern social scientists as ethnic
groups. The term comes from a Greek word, ethnos, which means a tribe, people,
or folk with a distinct cultural identity. Ethnicity does not refer to physical or racial
characteristics even though ethnic groups may indeed share common physical
features. Ethnicity is also a different concept from that of the nation. These two
terms are often confused partly because they originally meant the same thing. The
term nation comes from the Roman word, natio. It was used pejoratively by the
Romans to refer to the tribes and peoples they had conquered and viewed as inferior
to themselves. The term came into modern use during the French Revolution when
it was used by the Jacobins as a political slogan to rally the people against foreign
nobles who threatened to invade and reinstate monarchical rule. In this sense,
nationalism evoked a sense of pride in national achievements, a strong sense of
belonging to the nation, and a willingness to fight for a national cause.
It is this political connotation that now gives the term its distinctive meaning.
While the concept of ethnicity has no political significance, the idea of a nation is
essentially political. Ethnic groups are cultural entities. Nations are composed of
single or multiple ethnic groups that exist within the geopolitical boundaries of a
distinctive nation state. As social scientists such as Ernest Gellner (1983) have
pointed out, ethnic groups have for millennia lived within the framework of
imperial rule without desiring political autonomy within a distinctive geographic
territory that they can call their own. The nation state, Gellner argues, is a relatively
recent phenomenon.
Nation states are the basic components of the modern world. Although contem
porary nationalism has its roots in the ancient phenomenon of ethnicity, it was only
during the 19th century that it gained momentum and that political movements
devoted to the creation of new nation states emerged. This trend was influenced
by the writings of 19th-century nationalist thinkers such as Gottfried von Herder
in Germany and Giuseppe Mazzini in Italy, who made emotional appeals for
national identity and political self-determination. Their writings were widely read
and attracted considerable support. They also gave expression to the insecurities
created by rapid social change. As Gellner and other scholars have argued, the rise
of nationalism was fostered by the decline of feudalism, the devastation of the
Napoleonic Wars, and the rise of industrialism, which undermined traditional
beliefs and well-established forms of social organization. With increased individu
alism and disaffection, the promise of security, identity, and cohesion within the
framework of a supportive national group was enormously reassuring.
Nationalist fervor swept Europe in the mid-19th century. New nationalist move
ments emerged in many parts of Europe, and ethnic groups within the European
empires began to campaign for autonomy. These movements were ruthlessly
suppressed, but they set into motion powerful forces that would result in the
creation of new nation states in the early decades of the 20th century. There were
similar developments in Latin America in the 19th century, where new nations with
their own flags, anthems, political institutions, and identities emerged out of the
ruins of Iberian imperialism. Although the people of most of these new states spoke
a common language, they took pride in identifying with their own countries. The
creation of the United States of America also owed its origins to imperial weakness
and the rise of a new identity based on ideological beliefs that were distinct from
those prevailing in the motherland.
While 19th-century nationalism created new liberation movements and resulted
in the creation of nation states in Europe and the Americas, it had little effect in
the rest of the world. At the time, European imperialism was rapidly extending its
dominance in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. European imperialism
had begun with the mercantile adventures of Iberian sailors some 400 years earlier.
In search of new trade routes to the East Indies, where the spice trade promised
rich rewards, these explorers traveled around the Cape of Good Hope, reached the
Caribbean and South America, and eventually found their way around Cape Horn
to circumnavigate the globe. They were motivated not by the goal of conquest but
of trade. As Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) points out, it was merchant capitalism
that provided the initial stimulus for European world imperial domination and the
subsequent creation of the global world system.
However, the initial mercantile stimulus for imperial domination was not to last.
Although Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, and France all initially en
gaged in international activities for purposes of trade, commercial motives were
soon replaced by political considerations. Political control was an obvious corol
lary of commercial exploitation. The imperial powers discovered that their com
mercial interests were not only enhanced through trade but through establishing
plantations, extracting natural resources, and exploiting the labor of indigenous
people. Slavery, forced labor, and serfdom were imposed for this purpose. These
activities required the creation of new forms of authority that either manipulated
indigenous rulers or established direct rule over subjugated people. In addition,
because the power and prestige of the European nations became linked to their
colonial possessions, they scrambled to acquire new territories. At the end of the
19th century, Germany, Italy, and Belgium joined the older imperial powers such
as Spain, Britain, and France and annexed new territories in Africa and other parts
of the world.
Other factors also fostered European imperial expansion. Missionaries encour
aged the extension of European rule to "civilize" and Christianize supposedly
primitive people. In addition, imperial rule was extended as European settlers
invaded new lands and demanded military protection against the peoples they
displaced. However, even as they subjugated local people, the seeds of resistance
to European imperial domination were taking root. Contrary to the claims of
colonial administrators, settlers, and missionaries, local people did not view their
subjugation with equanimity.
As new nation states emerged in Europe in the aftermath of World War I, the
struggle for independence from European imperialism in Africa, Asia, the Carib
bean, and the Pacific gained momentum. Indigenous people in these parts of the
world were inspired by European nationalist movements that had secured auton
omy from German and Austrian imperial domination after the war. The struggle
for independence intensified in the years after World War II. Despite attempts by
the European powers to suppress local resistance, nationalist movements in Africa,
Asia, the Caribbean, and the Pacific attracted widespread support. Most of the
nationalist leaders were middle-class, educated individuals who often had studied
at European universities where they came under the influence of Western political
ideologies. Although many embraced democratic socialism or Marxism, their

primary ideological motivation was nationalism, and it was through nationalist
organizations that they were able to exploit the weaknesses of the European
imperial powers and secure sovereignty. However, many suffered for their beliefs.
Many Third World nationalist leaders were imprisoned, tortured, and abused.
The history of European colonial rule is littered with examples of the brutal
methods that were used to crush local opposition and maintain imperial domina
tion. However, the nationalist struggles of Third World people were rewarded, and
during the decades following World War II, the process of decolonization acceler
ated. In some parts of the world, such as Algeria, Rhodesia, and Vietnam, decolo
nization was accompanied by protracted violence. In others, decolonization pro
ceeded on a relatively peaceful basis. By the 1980s, the struggle for independence
had resulted in the creation of many new nation states in Africa, Asia, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific.
The decades following the end of World War II represent the fulfillment of the
ideals of nationalism. By the time that European colonial rule over the Third World
had come to an end, the world's peoples were largely organized into nation states.
Most of Central and South America had previously secured independence. Al
though imperial rule continued in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe until the
late 1980s, the earlier political recognition of national entities within the Soviet
system fueled the centrifugal forces that were to culminate in the creation of new
nation states in the region during the 1990s. Today, the nation state is almost
universally viewed as the most desirable form of political organization. While
struggles for national sovereignty continue as Tibetans, Kurds, and other ethnic
groups seek political autonomy, nationalism has largely attained its goals.
The nation state has also provided a framework for social science investigation.
Most sociologists, economists, and political scientists formulate theories and
research agendas within the framework of the nation state. When sociologists in
the United States use the term society, they usually mean American society.
Similarly, when American economists develop mathematical models of the econ
omy, these models are usually based on the economy of the United States. This is
equally true of social science inquiry in other countries, where research agendas,
conceptual approaches, and other academic activities all take place within the
context of the nation state.
The use of the nation state as the basic unit for analysis in economics had
profound implications for Third World development. At the end of World War II,
the governments of many newly independent developing countries adopted poli
cies designed to promote rapid economic modernization. These policies resulted
in the creation of central planning agencies that were given responsibility for
national economic development. While economic development plans were not
neglectful of international economic relations for purposes of investment and
trade, they focused on the development of the domestic economy. Most newly
independent governments proposed a strategy of import substitution by which new
domestic industries would manufacture the goods that were previously imported
from the industrial nations. In this way, local industry would thrive, employment
opportunities would expand, and many more people would be drawn out of rural
poverty into the modern sector of the economy.
The Globol World System 27
Although these ideas were widely adopted around the world, some social
scientists argued that efforts to promote economic development at the level of the
nation state were unlikely to succeed. They stressed the significance of the links
between national domestic economic activity and global economic forces. The
importance of international economic linkages was first emphasized by a group of
social scientists known as the dependency school. Their work led to the emergence
of a broader approach known as world systems theory. The writings of these social
scientists had profound implications for the discovery of the global economy and
the modern world system.
Discovery of the World System
Although the world is now widely perceived as a collectivity of discrete,

autonomous nation states, some social scientists believe that the forces of globali
zation will transcend the nation state and reduce its importance in world affairs.
They believe that the world system, rather than the nation state, will become the
unit for analysis and the basis for economic activity and social identity in the
future.
At the same time that nationalism was creating individual nation states, the
forces of internationalization were also at work. These forces can be seen in the
creation of new forms of international cooperation as exemplified in the diverse
programs of the United Nations, the emergence of international sporting activities,
international trade treaties, and the growth of international professional associa
tions. Increased international cooperation of this kind has flourished during this
century. The first modern Olympic Games were held about a hundred years ago;
the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, was created at the
end of World War I; the World Bank and International Monetary Fund were
established at the end of World War II; and international professional associations
in many fields, including social work and social welfare, were created during this
century.
Contemporary international cooperation is based on the principle that separate
nation states collaborate with each other to attain specified goals. Each state
remains an independent and sovereign entity, and its identity is not subsumed under
a larger, international system. However, some believe that this model does not
work in practice. In the 1950s and 1960s, many Third World leaders claimed that
national sovereignty was subject to powerful political forces emanating from the
United States and the Soviet Union. They claimed that their nations were in fact
being subtly influenced by what was called neo-colonialism. Many believed that
the only way to resist neo-colonial influences was to create new groupings of
nations with similar interests. President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was a leading
advocate of Pan-Africanism, which promoted the idea that African countries
needed to collaborate to resist foreign control. Similarly, President Gamal Nasser
of Egypt led efforts to foster greater collaboration between the Arab nations.
President Tito of Yugoslavia, President Sukarno of Indonesia, and Prime Minister
Nehru of India were leaders of the nonaligned movement of nations, which was
established in the 1950s to strengthen opposition to American, European, and
Soviet influences. However, despite their efforts, many commentators have con
cluded that the forces of geopolitical control remain powerful and will continue to
undermine the autonomy of individual nation states.
Although the role of political factors has often been cited as a primary reason
for the weakening of national sovereignty, some social scientists believe that
economic forces are much more important. These social scientists draw on the
writings of Karl Marx to argue that economic rather than cultural or political forces
determine human events. They believe that imperialism is not simply the result of
a desire to conquer and rule other people but that it stems from economic motives.
At the end of the 19th century, several writers offered economic arguments for the
rapid expansion of European imperialism. Imperialism, they claimed, could be
attributed to the need for capitalists in the European industrial countries to find
new markets for their products. Because European capitalists had saturated their
domestic markets and were experiencing declining profits, they needed new
opportunities for commercial exploitation. Accordingly, they encouraged Euro
pean colonial expansion. In addition, colonialism provided new sources of capital
for domestic investment and wealth. Several writers, including the German social
ist Rosa Luxemburg, the English journalist John Hobson, and even Vladimir Lenin,
the Russian revolutionary leader, articulated this view. However, despite its appeal,
Benjamin Cohen (1973) has shown that the theory has limited empirical validity.
In the 1960s, the economic theory of imperialism inspired a group of social
scientists in Latin America to claim that the region's efforts to promote economic
development were doomed. These social scientists belong to the dependency
school mentioned earlier. One of the leading proponents of the school is Andre
Gunder Frank (1967, 1975), who has written extensively about the capitalist
exploitation and underdevelopment of Latin America. Frank argues that while
many Latin American countries had adopted import substitution policies in an
attempt to promote rapid economic growth, they were stagnating. These countries,
he claims, would not experience economic development because they were sub
jected to powerful exploitative capitalist forces emanating from the industrial
nations. Frank argues that the capitalist penetration of Latin America began at the
time when the first mercantile voyages of exploration were undertaken. Through
the use of imperial power, the capitalist countries created exploitative links with
Latin America, which expropriated the region's wealth. As a result of these links,
the region became underdeveloped. Its mighty empires were destroyed, its vitality
was sapped, and its economic resources were transferred to the centers of world
economic power in Europe and North America. Frank believes that the process of
exploitation continues today. Instead of undergoing economic and social develop
ment, Latin American countries have experienced active and continuous underde
velopment. Frank's work is extremely pessimistic and suggests that the linkages
of dependency will only be broken when the world capitalist system is overthrown.
Although Frank is widely regarded as the leading exponent of dependency
theory, other Latin American social scientists have written along similar lines.
Some of them are less pessimistic than Frank, claiming that the capitalist exploi
tation of Latin America has not resulted in the continuous underdevelopment of
the region but that limited or dependent development has taken place. One expo
nent of this idea is the Brazilian sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who was
elected president of Brazil in 1994 (Cardoso & Faleto, 1979). Other dependency
writers do not agree with Frank that a global revolution is needed to promote
development. Instead, they believe that development can take place when Third
World countries break their exploitative links with the Western industrial nations.
Delinking is, therefore, a major policy objective for these dependency writers.
Dependency theory has also been influential in other parts of the Third World
where similar analyses of the exploitative force of capitalism have been under
taken. One of the best known accounts of this kind is the book How Europe
Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney (1972). Rodney was a Caribbean aca
demic who taught at the University of Dar-es-Salaam in Tanzania. Dependency
theory has also appealed to Third World students, intellectuals, and nationalist
politicians who believe that the economic and social problems of their countries
are caused by Western imperialism.
The dependency writers have made a major contribution to discovering the role
of global economic forces in development. They modified earlier ideas about the
economic role of imperialism to show that the efforts of nation states to develop
their economies were limited by these global forces. They also formulated a model
of the workings of the global economy that differentiated between the countries of
the capitalist metropole or center and the Third World satellites or periphery. The
capitalist center creates linkages with the periphery, which results in a one-way
transfer of resources. These linkages are implemented through the agents of
capitalism, which include multinational corporations, international banks, and
intergovernment agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank. Local business elites, politicians, and landowners cooperate with the agents
of capitalism and facilitate the process of exploitation. By analyzing these link
ages, the dependency writers transcended established theoretical approaches in the
social sciences that focused on the nation state and proposed that economic and
social development takes place at the domestic level.
While the dependency theorists showed that global economic forces transcend
the nation state, their work tended to be regional in focus, highlighting the
relationship between the industrial capitalist countries and particular regions such
as Latin America or Africa. More recently, a group of social scientists known as
the world systems theorists has extended the ideas of the dependency writers to
explain the workings of the global economy in its totality. These social scientists
include Immanuel Wallerstein (1974, 1980) and Samir Amin (1976). Both agree
that capitalism has created a global economy that subsumes the economics of the
nation state. They also argue that the nation state should no longer be regarded as
the unit of analysis but that the world, in its totality, has become that unit. To
understand the global economy, it is necessary to treat the world as an integrated
system in which economic forces, dictated by the interests of capital, ebb and flow.
Wallerstein regards the global economy as being very fluid. Amin views it as a
more rigid system in which the advanced industrial countries continue to dominate.
Like the dependency writers, Amin believes that a decisive break with capitalism
is needed if the developing countries are to prosper. Wallerstein does not think that
this is possible. Instead, Third World governments need to understand the way the
system works and seize the chances created by the flow of global capital. The fact
that previously impoverished nations in East Asia have been able to experience
rapid industrial development is due to the fluidity of these forces and the ability
of astute governments to influence capital flows. Their ability to attract investment
capital and to adopt export-led development strategies has successfully exploited

the opportunities afforded by the global economy.
World systems theory has not only transcended the limitations of the dependency
school but has provided powerful insights into the way the global economy
operates. In addition, its basic ideas are regularly expressed in popular journalism
and political arguments where the consequences of economic globalization are
interpreted in very different ways.
While many believe that the integration of the world's economy will enhance
prosperity for all, others are pessimistic about the future. Many progressives in the
industrial countries are worried about the way economic globalization will affect
employment opportunities and standards of living.
Dimensions of Globalization
Economic Aspects
Today, the term globalization is largely used in an economic sense. But it also
has political, technological, cultural, and social connotations. Used in the eco
nomic sense, the term has acquired a strong negative connotation reflecting
growing concern about the effects of international economic forces on incomes,
jobs, and economic stability. This concern is particularly intense in the Western
industrial nations where it is widely believed that globalization is destroying local
industries. It is generally believed that jobs are being exported to developing
countries where labor costs are low. This belief has been fueled by the closure of
many traditional industries in these countries. It is widely believed that these
closures are due to the ability of large corporations to move capital to regions of
the world where labor costs are low, unions are weak, and labor regulation slack.
Firms that once employed local people now invest in developing countries so that
they can increase their profits. At the same time, the low-cost goods they produce
are reimported into the industrial nations where they compete unfairly with locally
manufactured products. In this way, globalization is contributing to deindustriali
zation, destroying employment opportunities and lowering living standards in the
Western countries (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982).
There is no doubt that the industrial nations are undergoing major economic
changes. Employment in manufacturing and heavy industries in Europe and North
America has indeed declined. Plant closures and the loss of thousands of jobs in
communities that were largely dependent on a single industrial enterprise have
become more frequent. These events have attracted widespread media attention
and have become a political issue. Many social scientists also believe that the era
of mass industrialization is coming to an end. They argue that the importance of
industry in the Western economies is declining and that new forms of employment
will accompany the change from an industrial to postindustrial economy. Factories
that employ thousands of workers and support local communities will disappear
and be replaced by service industries that specialize in high-tech electronic and
information systems. As Robert Reich (1991) argues, industrial workers will be
replaced by "symbolic analysts" who will engage in what he calls "high value
problem solving." These workers will use their intellects rather than manual skills
to engage in productive economic activities and compete in the new global system.
Although it is widely believed that these events can be attributed to the export
of capital to countries where labor is cheap, it is not the only reason. Indeed, the
situation is much more complicated. Production costs may be lower in other parts
of the world, but as Reich (1991) points out, the rise of the "global web" now
permits firms to purchase different services in many different parts of the world
with great rapidity. Design, data analysis, component production, and other activi
ties related to a single product such as an automobile may be purchased from
different countries. In this situation, it is the availability of different high-quality
components at competitive prices that is of critical importance. The old idea that
all the components of a product are produced at one manufacturing center is
obsolete. Another factor in deindustrialization is falling productivity. Economists
such as Paul Krugman (1996) and Thomas Moore (1996) believe that j o b losses in
the United States are largely due to declining investments and falling productivity.
It is, of course, true that many large firms have shifted capital abroad and that
they now employ large numbers of workers in other countries. Reich estimates that
more than 20% of the output of American firms is produced by workers outside
the United States. Overseas capital spending by these firms has also increased
dramatically. Because of new communications networks, it is possible for Ameri
can firms to use labor in many different countries. Insurance claims, airline
reservations, software designing, and many other tasks can now be performed
overseas. While this trend may be attributed to lower labor costs, the role of skills
and other factors is equally important. The rise of India as a major center for
computer software design is due not only to lower labor costs but to the skills of
Indian software analysts.
Another aspect of economic globalization that is often overlooked is that
corporations from other countries also invest in the industrial nations. In the
mid-1970s, only 5% of manufacturing production in the United States came from
foreign firms located in the United States, but by 1990, the figure had increased
to 13% (Reich, 1991). In addition, these firms employed more than 3 million
American workers. Globalization does not, therefore, involve the one-way export
of capital and jobs but results in reciprocal capital flows. Economic globalization
is thus a far more complex phenomenon than simplistic accounts of the impact of
capital export would suggest.
These realities have led some economists such as Paul Krugman (1996) to claim
that the concept of globalization is not a useful one. Despite all the recent
sensationalism about globalization, he points out that international economic
exchanges are hardly new and that debates about free trade have been raging since
the time of Adam Smith. While Krugman recognizes that global trade has in
creased, he does not believe that this is the cause of deindustrialization or stagnat
ing incomes in the industrial economies. Productivity declines are far more
relevant in understanding recent events than sensational reports about globaliza
tion that, he claims, amount to little more than "globalony."
On the other hand, writers on the political left have expressed strong views about
the way profit-seeking international capital flows not only harm the economies of
the industrial countries but also the developing countries. Drawing on the insights
of the dependency theorists, they believe that these flows exploit labor in the Third
World, cause environmental damage, and undermine local cultural and political
institutions. Many blame multinational firms, the International Monetary Fund,
and the World Bank, which they believe serve the interests of global capitalism.
For example, Bruce Rich (1994) believes that the World Bank is little more than
an agent of international capitalism. Its activities, he claims, hurt the poor, harm
the environment, and impede development in low-income countries. Reviewing
the activities of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Kevin
Danaher (1994) contends that these organizations have impoverished the world's
developing countries while securing economic and political advantage for the
metropolitan powers. A similar argument has been made by the respected American
academic Noam Chomsky (1994), who believes that the multinational firms and
international agencies are a de facto world government serving the interests of
capitalism.
In its 1995 World Development Report, the World Bank refuted these arguments,
claiming that the integration of the developing countries into the global economy
will promote development and enhance standards of welfare in the Third World.
Economic integration could, the World Bank claimed, increase economic growth
rates in these countries by 5% per annum over the next decade (World Bank, 1995).
These views are today widely supported by business and political interests in the
industrial countries. However, many on the left believe that globalization has
brought few positive results, and they remain extremely pessimistic about the
future. Chomsky is particularly despairing about the process of globalization,
which, he believes, will negate the efforts of governments to promote the welfare
of their people.
However, some writers on the left such as Denis MacShane (1995) concede that
the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and multinational corporations
are not the primary agents of global economic power. Instead, this power lies with
ordinary people in the industrial nations, who contribute to pension funds, buy
stocks, and hold savings deposits, which are invested internationally. He argues
that it is " w e " who generate the capital that flows internationally in search of
lucrative investment opportunities. Pension fund managers and investment agents
are far more powerful than the multinationals and international agencies. By
becoming more involved in investment decisions, people in the industrial countries
can influence the workings of the global economy in positive and socially respon
sible ways.
Political Aspects
The discovery of the global economy is, of course, only one aspect of the overall
trend toward globalization. As was noted earlier, globalization also has a distinct
political dimension. Both the dependency and world systems theorists have em
phasized the role of imperialism and foreign conquest in the creation of the modern
world. Although European imperialism was clearly motivated by economic con
siderations, it involved the use of power to subjugate people in other lands and
bring them under imperial control. The exercise of power in this way resulted in
the creation of international political linkages, which played a critical role in the
integration of the world's peoples into the European empires, the global capitalist
system, and finally into the contemporary world political order. While this order
is still characterized by the differential exercise of power, political influence is
today tempered by regional and other diplomatic alliances and by the role of
intergovernment bodies such as the United Nations. Increased political coopera
tion through agencies of this kind has also fostered greater international integration
and contributed to the process of globalization.
Technological Aspects
The concept of globalization is today closely linked to the role of technology,

and particularly to the information technology revolution. Many experts believe
that the rapid expansion of information technology in recent decades has played a
much more important role in fostering globalization than political or economic
factors. Of course, there can be no doubt that technology has been of great
significance in understanding the changes that have taken place. Over the past
century, communications technologies have improved spectacularly and greatly
facilitated contacts with people in remote places. With improved means of travel
and the advent of the personal computer and the Internet, rapid communication can
now take place. These improvements have major implications for international
economic, political, and cultural activities. It is now possible to make instant
investments in the economies of other countries, to obtain up-to-date intelligence
for political purposes, and to quickly acquire information about cultural activities
in other parts of the world.
While technological developments have undoubtedly played a critical role in
fostering globalization, it should be remembered that technology is a medium for
communication. The ability to communicate with others instantaneously is a
resource that serves wider economic, political, social, and cultural purposes. On
the other hand, it should be recognized that enhanced information flows can
accelerate global integration simply by enhancing contacts between people in
different parts of the world. For this reason, the role of technology in globalization
is crucial and will become even more important in the future as electronic forms
of communication are more widely used.
Cultural Aspects
Globalization also has a cultural aspect. There is evidence to show that increased
globalization is fostering internationally shared attitudes, preferences, and tastes.
Western pop music, Chinese cuisine, Japanese motorcycles, African crafts, and
many other cultural artifacts now have global appeal. Some social scientists have
even argued that cultural beliefs will increasingly converge and that a single, global
belief system will emerge. A leading exponent of this idea is Francis Fukuyama
(1992), who argues that with the collapse of communism, ideological differences
will disappear and that the historical struggle between different belief systems will
come to an end. These ideas are, of course, controversial not only in the sense that
their factual basis is disputed, but in the sense that their normative desirability is
questionable.
Social Welfare Aspects
In addition to its economic, political, technological, and cultural components,

globalization also has a social welfare component. As was noted earlier in this
book, social welfare institutions initially emerged at the local level, and with the
rise of the nation state, they became institutionalized at the societal level as well.
Industrialization played a critical role in fostering the institutionalization of state
welfare, and over the past century, social welfare has emerged as a property of
nation states. However, with increased globalization, the need to view social
conditions and social welfare responses at the international level has become more
acute. Government social programs are now subject to global forces that have a
major impact on these programs. Similarly, social problems that transcend national
boundaries are becoming more pressing and require international intervention.
This book seeks to increase awareness of the need for a global perspective in social
welfare. As its subsequent chapters will show, social needs and social welfare
conditions can best be examined and understood at the international level. The
book will also suggest that the social welfare of the world's peoples can be
promoted when effective social policies and programs are implemented at the
international level.
THE DIVISION OF THE WORLD
Despite the discovery of the forces of globalization, it is clear that the nation state
is still the basic unit of international analysis. Although world systems theorists
believe that social science investigation should focus on the global system as a
whole, it is likely that nation states will continue to serve as the basic components
of this system for the time being. The nation state will also continue to function as
the unit at which social welfare issues are analyzed and social policies are
formulated and implemented. While the United Nations and other intergovernment
organizations have made a major contribution to the promotion of social welfare
at the international level, national governments are still the primary bodies through
which social welfare issues are addressed. This is also true when the role of
voluntary, nonprofit organizations are considered. International voluntary or
ganizations such as OXFAM and Save the Children's Fund now play a major role
in promoting social welfare, but in most countries, national-level activities pre
dominate.
For this reason, it is important to have some understanding of how the nations
of the modern world have been classified. As has already been shown, the world
is not a simple system composed of autonomous nation states that interact with
each other in predictable ways. In the past, the nation states that comprise the units
of the system have been grouped into categories or subsystems in terms of
geographic, cultural, economic, and political criteria. Although widely used, these
categories are created by human beings and are, therefore, artificial and subject to
change. They often serve particular political or other purposes. They are of limited
usefulness, but because they are widely used, they need to be understood. Their
role in promoting international collaboration should, in particular, be recognized.
There are about 5.5 billion people in the world today (United Nations, 1993b;
United Nations Children's Fund, 1996). They live in more than 200 nation states.
The most common basis for classifying these nation states is geographic contigu
ousness. Classifications of this kind follow natural geographic boundaries caused
by coastlines, mountain ranges, and other natural divisions. This criterion has been
used since ancient times to categorize the world's nations in terms of the continents
of Africa; Asia; Europe; North, Central, and South America; and the Pacific. These
categories are also sometimes known as international regions. However, this
approach has obvious limitations. Countries of very different cultural, economic,
and political characteristics may share the same continental area. Asia, for example,
is composed of nations of varying cultures, religions, and levels of economic and
social development. One solution is to create subcontinental or subregional group
ings. For example, the nations of Africa are often divided into the Arab-speaking
states of the north and the remaining sub-Saharan states, as they are known. Despite
these and other difficulties, the continental or regional classification of the world's
nation states is probably more widely used than any other, and it is also the most
readily understood.
Nations are also grouped in terms of economic criteria. Gross national product
(GNP) per capita is widely used to group countries in terms of their level of
economic development. The World Bank uses this approach in its annual World
Development Report, which provides up-to-date tables on a large number of
economic and social indicators. For example, the tables in the World Bank's 1995
report contain four categories of countries: first, countries known as the low-
income economies, which have a GNP per capita of less than $670 per annum;
second, the middle-income economies, which have a GNP per capita of less than
$2,730 per annum; third, the upper-middle-income economies, which have a GNP
per capita of less than $7,500 per annum; and finally, the remaining high-income
economies, which exceed this figure. In addition to categories of this kind, nation
states have entered into economic trading blocks such as the European Union and
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the case of the European
Union, original economic motives for collaboration have now been transcended
by growing political collaboration.
Cultural and ethnic similarities have also formed the basis for classifying nation
states. Common languages and religions have often been employed as a basis for
these classifications. Examples include the English-speaking, Islamic, Arab, or
Slavonic nations. However, these categories seldom result in the creation of
political entities that effectively pursue common purposes. An exception is the
pan-nationalist movements that emerged in the 1950s under the leadership of
President Nasser in Egypt and President Nkrumah in Ghana to foster political
solidarity among the African and Arab nations. However, these movements did not
have long-term success even though they were very popular with ordinary people.
Countries have also been grouped in terms of social conditions as measured
through indicators such as life expectancy or adult literacy. Aggregate social
indicators have also been used to make classifications of this kind (Estes, 1984,
1988; Morris, 1979; United Nations Development Program, 1990). The use of
these approaches will be discussed in the next chapter. Population growth and other
demographic criteria have also been used for purposes of classification in the past.
Political activities have often formed the basis for categorizing the world's
nation states. Alliances and associations of nations have resulted in groupings that
pursue common political purposes or that associate for diplomatic and military
reasons. During World War II, the Allied nations fought against Germany, Japan,
and Italy, which were known as the Axis powers. At the end of World War II, the
world's nations were often divided into the Soviet and Western spheres of influ
ence. In the early years of the Cold War, it was common to hear about the division
of the world in terms of East and West. Political dominance has also been a basis
for categorizing the world's nations. European imperialism divided the world into
discrete spheres of political control that lasted for hundreds of years. In some cases,
such as the British Commonwealth, a common political heritage based on the
imperial legacy is still used to maintain linkages. More recent forms of political
association have emerged out of enhanced economic cooperation. The best exam
ple is the European Union, which evolved out of efforts to promote economic trade
between European nations.
It is, of course, possible to categorize the world's nations in terms of more than
one criterion. The best example is the Third World category, which is based on
economic, social, and political criteria. The term is today widely used to differen
tiate the nations of the world in terms of their level of economic development and
their social conditions (Midgley, 1987). The Third World concept also has a
political connotation, which emerged out of the struggle against European imperial
rule. As was noted earlier, many nationalist leaders believed that decolonization
had not freed their countries from the political influence of the industrial nations.
To counteract this influence, they created the nonaligned movement in the 1950s
to serve as a "third force" in global political affairs. This idea drew on the writings
of Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist leader, whose "theory" of the three worlds
differentiated between a First World composed of the Western capitalist countries,
a Second World made up of the Soviet Union and its allies, and a Third World
consisting of the previously colonized nations of Africa, Asia, and Central and
South America. The Third World was not, therefore, originally viewed as a
grouping of poor, underdeveloped countries but as a new alignment of nations that
would be able to exert significant geopolitical influence.
The idea of the Third World has been criticized by some writers for being
meaningless in view of the fact that the countries of the Third World are becoming
increasingly diversified. Various subgroupings have emerged within the Third
World category, and some of them such as the newly industrializing countries
(NICs) of East Asia and Latin America are no longer regarded as being economi
cally and socially underdeveloped. Other critics have claimed that the Third World
concept suggests that the people of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America
are economically and socially backward and, therefore, "third rate." They have
called for the abolition of the term on the grounds that it denigrates these nations.
For these reasons, attempts have also been made to replace the Third World
concept with new terms. The Brandt Commission (1980) divided the world into
the nations of the North and the South. The nations of the North were the industrial
countries of both the capitalist and communist worlds. The South was composed
of the Third World countries including the communist countries such as China,
Vietnam, and North Korea. However, this new term did not catch on, and despite
its weaknesses, the Third World concept has proved to be resilient. Whether it will
survive remains to be seen. The nations of the Third World are becoming increas
ingly diverse as some countries, particularly in East Asia, experience rapid eco
nomic development. Similarly, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which
comprised the Second World, it is not clear whether the classification will continue
to be meaningful.
It is likely that existing classifications of the world's nation states will change
in the future. With increased globalization, they may also cease to be as meaningful
as before. For this reason, they should be viewed as little more than a device for
simplifying a complex reality. However, as was pointed out earlier, the use of these
classifications as a means of fostering international collaboration to promote the
ideals of internationalism should be kept in mind.
THE IDEOLOGY OF INTERNATIONALISM
A proper understanding of international social welfare requires an understanding

of internationalism as an ideology. It was noted earlier that the process of globali
zation is often viewed as a destructive force that harms the local economy,
undermines the sovereignty of governments, and creates unemployment and pov
erty. On the other hand, some believe that globalization is fostering a new
consciousness of the world as an undivided entity. They believe that this will result
in greater international collaboration, reduce ethnic conflicts, and lead ultimately
to a proper appreciation of the common humanity of all people. However, those
who take this position are in a minority. Most people are strongly identified with
their countries, and some believe passionately in the importance of national
identity. Indeed, as current events in different parts of the world reveal, nationalism
continues to be a very powerful force. In Bosnia, Chechnya, Rwanda, and else
where, many people are prepared to kill and be killed for the cause of nationalism.
Like nationalism, internationalism is a political ideology. It may be defined as
the belief that political activities should not be pursued with reference to the
interests of particular nation states but rather with reference to universal, human
interests. There are, however, many different forms of internationalism. At one end
of the spectrum, internationalism may involve little more than the promotion of
positive relationships between separate sovereign nation states. At the other end,
it may involve a belief in the dissolution of nation states and the desirability of
some form of world government. These and other forms of internationalist thought
provoke different reactions and different degrees of controversy.
History and Forms of Internationalism
The roots of internationalism are old. Some of its formative ideas are to be found
in the great world religions. While some ancient religions were limited to the
indigenous cultures in which they emerged, others such as Buddhism spread across
ethnic and imperial boundaries to preach universal love and harmony. Some
religions such as Christianity and Islam engaged in proselytization believing in the
universal relevance of their teachings. In Christianity, this idea led to the medieval
notion of natural law, which holds that there are universally valid and applicable
precepts that apply to all peoples. It also enshrined the idea that the Church had a
universal duty to uphold natural law. As a doctrine, natural law challenges the idea
of relativism, which recognizes the rights of different people and cultures to
maintain their own beliefs. The issue is still relevant in international debates today
where some believe that there are universal beliefs and truths that apply to all
cultures, while others argue that ethnic and national groups have the right to
maintain their own beliefs and cultural practices even though these may be
repugnant to others.
Internationalism also has roots in imperialism. While few internationalists today
regard imperialism as a positive force, its role in creating multiethnic political
entities and fostering cross-cultural contacts is relevant to an understanding of the
way internationalism evolved. Also relevant is the role of migration as well as
economic factors such as mercantile trade in promoting contacts of this kind.
However, it is in the intellectual promotion of internationalism that its evolution
can best be understood. Internationalist thought has a rich history, which has found
expression in journalism, literature, political tracts, and academic publications. It
includes the writings of imperial apologists who claimed that "superior" Euro
pean nations brought many benefits to "backward" people in other parts of the
world. It also includes the work of great scholars such as Immanuel Kant, who
advocated the creation of an international league of nations that would eventually
replace the nation state and support a universal system of moral law. Kant
initially believed that the French Revolution was the first step toward the
creation of a truly international system, but he subsequently became disillusioned
with the revolutionaries and concluded that constitutional monarchy was the best
form of government.
Karl Marx also exerted a powerful influence on the emergence of international
ism. Marx believed that the proletarian struggle against capitalist exploitation
could best be waged at the international level. Capitalism must, he argued, be
overthrown throughout the world and not only in individual countries. Marx
argued that the proletariat was able to forge effective international links because
it had been so exploited that it had no reason to be loyal to any particular nation.
The workers' revolution, he predicted, would be a truly international event result
ing in the creation of an international socialist order. To foster these ideals, Marx
and his collaborators helped found the International Working Men's Association
in 1864, which became known as the First International. Riddled with bickering
and conflict, the organization was dissolved in 1876. The Second International was
formed in Paris in 1889, but it too collapsed. The Third International was estab
lished after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1919, and it survived under the
authoritarian control of Stalin until 1943. Trotsky and his followers created the
Fourth International in 1938, which advocated international revolution and op
posed Stalin's theory of socialism in one country. Trotskyites have remained the
most consistent supporters of the idea of international revolution. In addition,
democratic socialists also established an international called the Labour and

Socialist International in 1923, which still functions today.
Marx and other communist writers were wrong in their belief that the proletarian
class would reject nationalism. Indeed, many European working-class people have
historically been avid nationalists and imperialists. Indeed, during World War I,
many volunteered to fight and many perished for their countries. Nevertheless,
socialists have been the leading advocates of internationalist ideals. Despite the
inability of the communist internationals to cooperate, and the bitter rivalry that
emerged between China and the Soviet Union in the 1950s, the promotion of
international ideas has been consistently promoted by those on the political left.
However, it would be wrong to believe that internationalism is exclusively asso
ciated with the political left. Many leading internationalists including President
Woodrow Wilson of the United States and the other founders of the League of
Nations were liberals who believed passionately in the virtues of international
collaboration.
Internationalist ideas have also been expressed in literary and artistic circles.
The British science fiction writer H. G. Wells was an ardent internationalist who
believed that the creation of a world government managed by a highly educated,
administrative elite was the only way of abolishing war and promoting human
welfare on a global scale. It is not surprising that Wells's ideas were rejected and
frequently criticized. Many other writers and artists who advocated international
ism were also attacked. This included some who were not internationalists but
whose work reflected international influences. For example, the Italian composer
Giacomo Puccini was criticized because most of his operas were set in other
countries. Although he was famous, popular, and apolitical, Italian nationalists
attacked him for writing operas based on events in Japan, China, France, and the
United States rather than in his own homeland. With the rise of fascism during the
middle decades of this century, artists with international interests in both Italy and
Germany were harassed by the authorities for their alleged lack of patriotism.
Internationalist ideas are much more freely expressed today. The creation of the
United Nations and many other international organizations has done much to foster
awareness of the benefits of international collaboration, although even here, it is
not uncommon for these organizations to be criticized on various grounds. Atti
tudes favorable to internationalism have also been fostered by increased interna
tional travel, communications, and artistic and sporting events. However, as was
noted earlier, nationalism remains a powerful force and internationalist ideas are
not very popular.
Internationalism takes many forms. The British expert Fred Halliday (1988) has
identified three types of internationalism: liberal internationalism, which defines
internationalism as the effective cooperation between sovereign nation states;
hegemonic internationalism, which he equates with imperialism; and revolution
ary internationalism, which is based on the socialist belief in the inevitability of
proletarian revolution and the creation of a socialist world government. Halliday's
categories may be augmented by new forms of internationalism associated with
social movements such as the feminist, peace, and ecological movements. These
groups believe in the need for universal solidarity to promote their causes. Their
efforts have resulted in the global mobilization of people on a significant scale
(Hegedus, 1990).
Classifications such as these reveal that like many other ideologies, internation
alism is expressed in different ways and has adherents who differ in the degree to
which they pursue their beliefs. While liberal internationalism is perhaps the most
popular and viable form of internationalism, revolutionary internationalism has
few supporters. The idea of a world government has never been popular even in
mainstream socialist circles, but it is now hardly ever mentioned. However, the
emergence of the European Union and the growing political power of its legislature
and bureaucracy suggests that this idea is not as far-fetched as many would believe.
There are also some who believe that the world is already governed by international
financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World
Bank. As was noted earlier, Chomsky (1994) argues that these organizations are
already a de facto government concerned with promoting the interests of interna
tional capitalists to the detriment of nation states and their citizens.
As Chomsky's comments reveal, writers on the left of the political spectrum are
not unqualified supporters of internationalism. While it is true that international
ism has traditionally been championed by those on the political left, their support
is dependent on what internationalism involves and whom it affects. This obser
vation has lessons for social workers and social administrators who believe in the
value of promoting internationalist ideals. The promotion of international values
in social welfare is commendable, but it must be subsumed under a wider commit
ment to promote the welfare of people throughout the world.
PART II
THE ANALYSIS OF
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL WELFARE
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIAL CONDITIONS
IN GLOBAL CONTEXT
This chapter examines social conditions in the modern world. It serves as a prelude
to the next chapter, which discusses the different activities that have promoted
human well-being in different parts of the world over the years. The definition of
social welfare provided in Chapter 1 will be used to frame the discussion. That
chapter defined social welfare as a state of human well-being that exists when
social problems are managed, human needs are met, and social opportunities are
maximized. It will be remembered that conditions of well-being exist at different
levels including that of individuals and families, organizations, communities, and
societies. Although social conditions in different countries have been extensively
documented, this chapter will focus primarily on the different world regions. In
this way, it hopes to enhance understanding of social conditions in the modern
world as a whole.
Social scientists who have studied social conditions around the world have made
extensive use of the official statistical reports of governments and intergovernment
agencies. While these reports are a valuable source of information, social surveys
have also been undertaken to study social conditions. Before attempting to describe
these conditions, the chapter will briefly discuss the sources of information as well
as the major methodological approaches that have been used by those who have
investigated social conditions.
In addition to providing a profile of current global social conditions, changes in
these conditions over recent decades will be reviewed. As will be shown, the
situation is decidedly mixed. While there has been significant social progress for
millions of people in different parts of the world since the end of World War II,
43
44 THE ANALYSIS O F INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
social illfare remains widespread. In addition, while people in some parts of the
world have high standards of living, social conditions for millions of other people
are still very unsatisfactory.
MEASURING SOCIAL CONDITIONS
The techniques that social scientists have used to measure social conditions should
be understood. As will be appreciated, studying social conditions on a global scale
is not an easy task. There are many impediments to accurately measuring these
conditions. There are problems with the accuracy of the data as well as difficulties
in deciding which data should be used. In addition, there are disagreements among
social scientists about the different methodologies that can be employed to study
social well-being. While some social scientists believe that statistical information
collected by governments is the most useful source of information, others claim
that social surveys are more reliable.
This section describes some of the approaches that have been used to measure
social conditions. It also describes the major sources of information available to
social scientists. It pays particular attention to the work that has been done on social
indicators, which are widely regarded as an effective means of quantifying and
measuring global social conditions today.
Social science research into social conditions has made significant progress over
the past century, and today different approaches are used to analyze social condi
tions in different parts of the world. In addition to academic social scientists, many
different government and private agencies now routinely collect and disseminate
information about social conditions. As will be shown, there are different methods
of data collection as well as diverse views about the best methods of studying social
well-being at the global level.
The first approach involves the analysis of government statistics. Although
governments have gathered information about their citizens for many centuries, it
is only since the last century that data of this kind have been collected routinely.
One source of statistical information is the population census. Censuses are now
carried out regularly in most countries, and they provide a great deal of useful
information about the population and its geographic, economic, and social char
acteristics. In addition to censuses, most governments have established procedures
for population registration, which require that all births, marriages, and deaths be
recorded. Population registration permits the analysis of demographic changes
over time. It is not only a valuable source of information about fertility and
mortality, but it helps social scientists to gain insights into health and social
conditions in a society. Another source is the routine statistical information
collected by government agencies. Many government departments are required to
provide regular statistical reports on their activities and the clients they serve.
These reports are augmented by the collection of data from individuals or organi
zations that are associated with these departments. For example, governments may
require private physicians to provide information to the ministry of health on all
Social Conditions in Global Context AS
the communicable diseases they treat. This information is not only helpful in
recording the incidence of these diseases but in containing their spread.
The analysis of government statistics is a very important source of information
for social scientists who study global social conditions. This information covers a
wide range of activities. Much of the available information about population
growth, health, education, housing, unemployment, and crime in different coun
tries comes from government statistical reports. These data are published in the
reports of government departments, in demographic yearbooks, and in statistical
compendiums. In some countries, social statistics are published in specialized gov
ernment documents. For example, the British government's publication Social Trends
regularly provides up-to-date information on the country's social conditions.
Statistics produced by governments are in turn collected by international agen
cies such as the United Nations, the International Labor Organization, the World
Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), and the
World Bank. Some of these organizations use this information to publish regular
reports about particular social conditions. For example, UNICEF regularly pub
lishes an annual report titled The State of the World's Children as well as a report
titled The Progress of Nations (United Nations Children's Fund, 1995, 1996). Both
contain detailed statistical tables about child health, nutrition, education, family
planning, and the status of women. Other agencies such as the World Bank publish
more comprehensive reports dealing not only with social but with economic,
demographic, and other conditions. The World Bank's World Development Report,
World Tables, and similar publications are widely used by social scientists today.
A second approach to measuring global social conditions involves the use of
social indicators. Social indicators are based on government statistics, but they
differ from these statistics in that they "point to" or indicate wider social condi
tions. They are standardized measures of particular events such as infant mortality,
literacy, the number of physicians in the population, and life expectancy, and while
they measure these events in a way that is agreed on by social scientists and
government statisticians, they also provide broader insights into a country's social
situation. For example, the infant mortality rate is a measure of the proportion of
children who die within the first year of birth. While it measures the number of
infant deaths, it is also an indicator of wider social conditions. Social scientists
know that high infant mortality rates are associated with poverty, low nutritional
status, ill health, and poor social conditions. For this reason, they often use the
infant mortality rate as a wider indicator of social well-being. Many other indica
tors are used to measure social conditions today. These include the literacy rate,
the school enrollment rate, the physician to population ratio, the unemployment
rate, the crime rate, life expectancy, and many others.
A variation on the social indicator approach is the aggregate or composite
indicator. This approach is based on the idea that several discrete social indicators
can be combined to form a composite index of social conditions. Instead of using
a number of different measures, advocates of this approach combine different
indicators to provide a single numerical index that measures social conditions in
a particular country. This index is then used to classify and rank different countries.
The composite indicator approach was pioneered at the United Nations Research
Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in Geneva in the 1960s (Baster, 1972).
The UNRISD investigators were anxious to identify a social index that would be
THE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
as popular as GNP per capita, which is widely used as an indicator of economic

development. However, due to disagreements among the investigators, two differ
ent indexes emerged. Both were based on a large number of separate indicators,
and neither was widely adopted. A much simpler alternative, known as the Physical
Quality of Life Index (PQLI), was developed by D. M. Morris in the United States
in the late 1970s (Morris, 1979). This index is based on only three individual
indicators, namely, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and literacy. The PQLI
is attractive because it is simple and quantifies social conditions on a scale of 0 to
100. It thus permits countries to be easily classified and ranked. In the 1980s,
Richard Estes (1984) of the University of Pennsylvania constructed an index based
on 44 social measures. Known as the Index of Social Progress (ISP), it has been
used to compare social conditions around the world and to study trends in world
social progress (Estes, 1988). More recently, the United Nations Development
Program (1990) published a new composite indicator known as the Human Devel
opment Index (HDI). The HDI is based on adult literacy, life expectancy, and
national income data.
A fourth approach to measuring social conditions is the social survey. Social
surveys emerged out of research into poverty undertaken in Europe and North
America in the late 19th century. Unlike the census, which is based on an
enumeration of the total population, surveys are based on samples, and their
findings are generalized to the wider population. Surveys are now extensively used
not only to collect information about social conditions but to undertake market
research and public opinion and political polling as well. Social scientists regularly
use surveys to study social conditions. Most surveys focus on the household and
are designed to study incomes, housing conditions, educational levels, consump
tion patterns, and similar trends. Studies of poverty are usually based on surveys
of household incomes. Studies of this kind are now routinely undertaken in many
countries, and they permit social scientists to measure the extent of global poverty
(Ahluwalia, 1976; Fields, 1980; World Bank, 1990). Poverty studies are often
combined with indicator research to analyze world social conditions.
A variation of the survey approach is the quality-of-life survey. This approach
uses survey methods to investigate people's subjective perceptions of their own
welfare. Social scientists using this approach have developed attitude question
naires that measure the degree to which people are satisfied with their lives. They
also study people's perceptions of social problems such as their fear of crime or
of losing their jobs. These studies are an interesting way of determining whether
people are content with their living standards and are a useful way of investigating
the qualitative aspects of social welfare.
A fifth approach to studying social conditions involves ethnographic research.
Research of this kind is undertaken by trained anthropologists, and it usually
focuses on local communities. The investigator spends an extended period of time
in the community and establishes close relationships with local people. These
relationships are important to ensure that in-depth information is obtained. After
studying the community, the field notes collected during the study are written up.
Similar methods have been used to study social groups and organizations. Al
though this approach does not generate information about social conditions at the
national level, it provides useful insights into the living standards of ordinary
Social Conditions in Global Context B19
people in different communities. It also serves as a useful supplement to indicator

research.
A final approach involves the use of documentary sources. These sources may
take the form of published studies into specific social conditions, which may use
some or all of the techniques described earlier. They include reports by voluntary
and government bodies. The official reports of government commissions of inquiry
are a particularly helpful source of information. Documentary sources also include
novels, biographies, or nonfictional books dealing with social conditions. Another
major source of information comes from journalists, who regularly publish reports
on social conditions in newspapers and magazines. Although journalists tend to
concentrate on dramatic events such as wars, famines, and natural disasters, they
have produced many serious accounts of malnutrition, violence toward women,
exploitation of children, and slum housing conditions in different parts of the
world. These reports are helpful in augmenting the quantitative studies that have
been undertaken by social scientists.
Although all of these approaches have been used to study social conditions
around the world, indicator and survey methods are most frequently employed.
Because official data for many different countries are now routinely collected and
are freely available, indicator research is perhaps the most accessible approach.
Social surveys are also undertaken much more frequently than before. The avail
ability of information derived from official data and social surveys permits social
scientists to reach conclusions about social conditions around the world. The
indicator approach will also be extensively used in this chapter, but it will be
supplemented where relevant by other sources of information.
When describing global social conditions, an attempt will be made to link the
available data to the concept of social welfare discussed in Chapter 1. As will be
shown, data on all three dimensions of the concept of social welfare have been
collected. However, the data do not systematically measure these components.
While there are data on social problems, human needs, and social opportunities,
they measure different aspects of these phenomena. No composite indicator of
social well-being based on these three dimensions has yet been constructed. It is
hoped that an index of this kind will eventually emerge. It will undoubtedly
facilitate an analysis of social conditions around the world.
SOCIAL PROGRESS A N D SOCIAL WELFARE
To understand current social conditions around the world, it is useful to review the
way these conditions have changed over time. This will facilitate a better under
standing of global social welfare today. Unfortunately, data are very limited for
the period before World War II. Although governments have been collecting
statistical information since the 19th century, it is only in the past 50 years that
data collection has been routinized and that sophisticated measurement techniques
have been developed.
Nevertheless, it is known from documentary and other sources that prior to this
century, social conditions were very unsatisfactory. For most of human history,
people lived in poverty and their health and housing standards were poor. Very few
obtained any education at all. Life expectancy was low and nutritional standards
were inadequate. Death was a frequent occurrence in most families, particularly
among the newborn. In addition, many people periodically experienced cata
strophic events such as plagues, famines, wars, and disasters. Many were exploited
and oppressed. Slavery and feudalism were widely practiced and opportunities for
self-determination were limited. Generally, human needs were not met, social
problems were not solved, and opportunities were limited.
This is not to deny that there were periods of affluence, peace, and well-being.
Some of the ancient civilizations provided an environment in which living stand
ards improved, the arts and knowledge flourished, and limited civil and political
rights were provided to citizens. However, even during these times, conflict marred
social achievements, and the oppression of large segments of the population was
institutionalized. Slavery and serfdom based on imperial conquest were the norm.
Also, these periods of prosperity were of limited duration. As the great civilizations
declined in economic and military power, the living standards of their people
deteriorated.
It is for this reason that many scholars have concluded that there was relatively
little social progress for most of human existence. However, many also believe that
unprecedented improvements have taken place during this century, particularly
since the end of World War II. People today live longer than ever before, they have
better nutritional and housing standards, they are better educated, and their health
conditions are significantly better than those of their ancestors. On the other hand,
it is also recognized that improvements in social well-being are not evenly spread
around the world. While people in the Western industrial nations enjoy a very high
standard of living, poverty, ill health, and illiteracy still persist on an unacceptable
scale in many parts of the Third World. Divergent levels of welfare are also to be
found in the industrial nations where social conditions for inner-city slum dwellers,
immigrants, and the rural poor are far from satisfactory.
Some social scientists do not accept that social conditions have improved
significantly during this century. For example, Christopher Lasch (1991) has
challenged the very idea of progress as nothing more than an American middle-
class view of the world that fails to recognize the extent to which the problems of
poverty, oppression, pollution, and ecological destruction continue to characterize
contemporary human societies. While many social policy experts disagree with
Lasch, they do not deny that much more needs to be done to meet people's needs,
resolve pressing social problems, and enhance opportunities for millions human
beings.
Social Progress in the Industrial Countries
The industrial countries of Western Europe, Japan, North America, and Aus
tralasia have the highest standards of living in the world. The improvements that
Social Conditions in Global Context 49
have taken place in these countries are the result of several centuries of change
driven by economic development and positive government intervention in social
welfare. The industrial countries were able to transform their impoverished agrar
ian subsistence societies into modern industrial economies characterized by high
levels of production and the creation of wage employment on a large scale. As
many more people found work in the modern sector of the economy, their incomes
increased and their standards of living improved. However, these achievements are
not only due to economic expansion but to appropriate government intervention.
Governments not only intervened to promote economic growth, but they created
extensive social programs that directly enhanced the well-being of their citizens.
Both factors transformed these societies and are now responsible for the high
standards of living their people enjoy.
It is because of the experience of the industrial nations that the role of economic
growth in social progress is today widely recognized. Indeed, the idea of progress
is closely linked to the notion of economic development (Arndt, 1978). It is
sustained economic growth that is widely regarded by governments, social scien
tists, and ordinary people to be the driving force for social improvements. How
ever, it is also recognized that economic development of itself is not a sufficient
condition for social welfare. As the experience of the industrial countries reveals,
economic and social policies need to be effectively integrated to ensure social
improvements for all. Some industrial countries have been more successful than
others in harmonizing economic and social development. Indeed, it the failure to
achieve this goal that is responsible for the persistence of poverty and deprivation
in economically advanced countries such as Britain and the United States (Midgley,
1994a, 1995).
The historical origins of the economic and social transformation of the industrial
nations are to be found in the expansion of manufacturing and trade in Europe 500
years ago. The wool trade, the growth of urban centers, and the mercantile voyages
of the 15th and 16th centuries all laid the foundations for the industrial revolution
of the 18th and 19th centuries. European imperial expansion and the colonization
of other societies also promoted economic development. As economic surpluses
were invested in new technologies, industrialization accelerated. Industrialization
created a demand for labor and fostered the redeployment of the labor force from
agriculture to industry. With this transformation, wage employment rather than
subsistence farming became the primary source of income for most people and the
mainstay of their social well-being.
Although economic development enhanced people's welfare, it did not magi
cally transform social conditions. Working conditions in the factories were appall
ing, exploitation was rife, many workers were poorly paid, and there were periods
of recession when unemployment was high. In addition, poverty was widespread,
and with continued urban migration, overcrowding and housing problems in
creased. Crime, substance abuse, child neglect, and other social problems were
endemic in the vast urban slums that characterized the expanding cities of Europe
and North America. It was in this situation that industrial workers began to
campaign for improved employment conditions and that many governments intro
duced reforms. Through the agitation of workers and their trade unions, working
conditions improved and limited social programs were introduced. In some Euro
pean countries, such as Britain and Scandinavia, working-class movements exerted

effective political pressure to bring about social improvements. In these countries,
working-class parties secured direct parliamentary representation and were able to
use the political process effectively. In other countries, such as Germany, reforms
were introduced by political leaders who feared social unrest.
Pressures for improved social conditions increased significantly in the industrial
nations during the 20th century. The suffering caused by the Great Depression and
the two world wars fostered the view that governments should take responsibility
for enhancing the welfare of citizens. The institutionalization of state responsibil
ity for social welfare is one of the most distinctive features of this century. It not
only characterized the Western industrial countries, which became known as
welfare states, but was the overriding ideology of the communist countries of
Eastern Europe and elsewhere. State welfarism also found expression in the
developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America.
It was during the era of rapid welfare state expansion in the years following
World War II that major social gains were recorded in the industrial countries.
Access to education, health care, improved housing, social security, and other
social services increased significantly and had a major impact on people's
standard of living. In addition, the period following the war was characterized by
sustained economic expansion and high employment. In fact, because of a short
age of unskilled and semiskilled workers, many migrant workers were imported
from the colonial territories, and this facilitated the ethnic diversity of the
European countries. There were similar developments in Australasia and the
United States. Subsequently, these very migrants would become the object of racist
antagonism.
Like many other parts of the world, the industrial nations were severely affected
by the oil shocks of the 1970s, when the world price of oil increased dramatically,
and by global economic recession. In addition, these economies were challenged
by global economic competition, deindustrialization, and declining employment
opportunities for unskilled and semiskilled workers. The new economic phenome
non of stagflation appeared to be resistant to government efforts to stimulate
economic revitalization. Although economic adversity had a negative impact on
people's welfare, retrenchments in social provisions in the 1980s were equally
serious, particularly in countries such as Britain and the United States, where
radical right political leaders were elected to office. In these countries, there has
been a marked deterioration in social conditions among lower-income groups and
particularly ethnic minorities, whose employment opportunities have been eroded
by the lack of unskilled and semiskilled jobs. In these countries, economic
globalization has not benefited those in low-paid occupations, and in some coun
tries, such as the United States, a growing "underclass" has emerged as a result of
these changes (Wilson, 1987, 1996).
Despite the reversals of the 1970s and 1980s, levels of social welfare in the
industrial nations remain high. Indeed, Estes (1988) reports that these countries
recorded steady gains in social progress in the 1970 and 1980s despite the fact
that they already had the highest levels of any regional grouping in the world.
It remains to be seen whether these improvements can be sustained in the face
of economic adversity and further ideological opposition to state-sponsored wel
fare programs.
Social Progress in the

Former Communist Countries
In discussing changes in social conditions in the former communist countries,

attention will focus on the nations of Eastern Europe and the western region of the
former Soviet Union.
The communist countries were ideologically and constitutionally committed to
promoting the welfare of their citizens. Indeed, communism was essentially about
using collective means of production to enhance social well-being. The idea of
collective welfare was, after all, at the center of Marxist doctrine. However, these
ideals were not fulfilled in the communist nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union.
Karl Marx had predicted that the transition to socialism would take place
through the revolutionary activities of the industrial proletariat in the nations of
Western Europe. Instead, the first communist revolution took place in Russia, a
predominantly agrarian, feudal society with a small industrial labor force. Nor did
it come about as the result of a spontaneous mobilization of the masses in favor of
communist teaching but rather in response to the suffering of the Russian people
during World War I and their dissatisfaction with the Czarist state. Similarly, the
spread of communism to Eastern Europe after World War II was hardly the result
of popular revolution. Most political scientists agree that the election of communist
governments in these countries was significantly influenced by Soviet military
occupation.
The massive destruction caused by World War II undoubtedly impeded the
improvement of social conditions under the Soviet and Eastern European commu
nist regimes. Enhancing people's welfare in these circumstances clearly posed
major challenges. Like their counterparts in the West, the communist leaders also
believed in the power of economic development to transform their societies.
However, they did not create free market systems but instead imposed direct state
control over the economy. The Soviet economic development plans were intended
to promote rapid industrialization through centralized direction. Unfortunately,
this was done at the expense of people's welfare. Stalin's ruthless dictatorial
powers permitted the expropriation of agricultural surpluses and the deferral of
consumption to fund industrial investments. In addition to his use of terror, his
economic policies contributed to falling living standards for millions of people.
The imposition of Soviet authority over the nations of Central Asia in the 1920s
also increased hardship as Soviet imperialism suppressed the cultural identity of
indigenous people and their rights to self-determination. During World War II, the
suffering of the Soviet people reached unprecedented proportions.
It was only in the Khruschev and Brezhnev years that the excesses of Stalinist
rule were ameliorated and that significant social gains were recorded (Cook, 1993).
With economic expansion and the absorption of a high proportion of the labor force
into industrial and service occupations, people's living standards improved. At the
same time, government social programs expanded. The position of women im
proved as new employment opportunities in the professions and other traditionally
male-dominated occupations were created. Although information was carefully
controlled by the state, there is evidence to show that levels of social welfare in
THE ANALYSIS O F INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union increased significantly during the 1960s and
1970s. During this period, the former communist countries were highly egalitarian.
The United Nations (1993b) reports that the Gini coefficient, which is a measure
of income inequality, was lower in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union than in
any other world region.
However, low income inequality did not mean that the communist countries had
no class system. Indeed, a well-established system of privileges favored party
members, government officials, and military officers. Nor were improvements in
welfare in the region uniformly distributed between the different communist
countries. While levels of welfare were highest in Eastern European countries such
as Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, they were far lower in the Central Asian
Soviet states and southern European communist countries such as Albania, which
remained economically and socially backward. In addition, there were variations
in levels of welfare by income groups within the communist countries. For
example, a study of health conditions in Bulgaria found that the health status of
agricultural workers was poorer than that of industrial and nonmanual workers.
Another study in Poland found that infant mortality rates were higher among
manual than nonmanual workers (United Nations, 1993b).
By the 1980s, it was clear that economic development in the Eastern European
and Soviet states had slowed. As a result of the oil shocks and global recession,
the communist countries faced severe difficulties. Other economic events also
retarded development efforts. Some countries, such as Poland, which had bor
rowed heavily from the Western nations, became heavily indebted and experienced
serious economic hardships. In other countries, such as Romania, corruption and
economic mismanagement fostered economic stagnation. The arms race undoubt
edly placed enormous pressures on the Soviet economy and impeded social
progress. Economic pressures as well as political unrest in Eastern Europe, military
intervention in Afghanistan, and the emergence of a more progressive leadership
contributed to the collapse of communism at the end of the 1980s.
Economic adversity had a major impact on levels of welfare in the region, and
social conditions deteriorated during this period. The incidence of poverty in
creased, and by the late 1980s, the percentage of the population living below the
poverty line had reached 24% in Yugoslavia, 22% in Poland, 17% in Hungary, and
7% in Czechoslovakia (United Nations, 1993b). At this time, beggars began to
appear on the streets of the cities of many communist countries.
The period following the collapse of communism has been accompanied by
reversals in social welfare for millions of people. The United Nations (1993b)
reports that there were massive declines in economic production in the early years
of this decade. For example, in 1990, production in the former communist coun
tries fell by 5%. In 1991, the decline was 16% and in 1992, 14%. Economic
stagnation has had a direct impact on social conditions. Unemployment has soared,
inflation has eroded incomes, poverty rates have increased, and crime and corrup
tion have become endemic. Homelessness, begging, and destitution are now
commonplace. Nevertheless, the visibility of poverty in these countries obscures
the fact that they have attained comparatively high levels of welfare for their
citizens. Despite the fact that social problems are now conspicuous, the former
communist countries have made significantly progress in meeting basic human
needs and creating social opportunities.
Social Progress and

Social Welfare in the Third World
As was shown in the last chapter, the idea of the Third World emerged in the
1950s as a geopolitical concept designed to promote the nonaligned status of the
nations of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. The term subsequently
acquired an economic and social welfare connotation implying that these nations
were impoverished and economically underdeveloped. Although this connotation
is now generally disliked, it is true that these countries faced many economic and
social challenges. Many were predominantly engaged in subsistence agriculture;
the modern economic sector was often quite small; incomes were low; and health,
education, housing, and other social conditions were unsatisfactory.
However, like the industrial and communist countries, the developing countries
also placed great emphasis on economic growth as the primary mechanism for
promoting the welfare of their citizens. In addition, many were able to combine a
free market approach with centralized planning. Many created planning ministries
that prepared Soviet style development plans designed to foster investments and
rapid industrial development. They were governed by nationalist movements that
were committed to using the power of the state to enhance economic performance
and improve social conditions. Some Third World countries such as Cuba, Viet
nam, and China had communist governments that were officially committed to
providing extensive social services to their citizens.
The developing countries achieved high rates of economic growth during the
1950s and 1960s. During this time, economic development was accompanied by
significant improvements in social conditions. Indeed, many experts believe that
social progress in the developing countries from the end of World War II to the
mid-1970s has been unprecedented (Bairoch, 1975; Loup, 1980; Morawetz, 1977).
However, it must be recognized that there are wide variations in the extent to which
governments were able to bring about positive economic and social changes. These
variations may be attributed to the level of government commitment, the choice
of development options, technical expertise, political realities, external conditions,
the extent of domestic conflict, and many other factors.
The overall trend toward economic and social improvement in the Third World
was accompanied by a widening gap in development performance between the
developing countries. Some countries experienced considerable economic devel
opment and significant improvements in social conditions. Others recorded a
satisfactory level of economic development but failed to ensure that the benefits
of development extend to the population as a whole. This second group of countries
is characterized by a high degree of what is known as distorted development. A
third group of developing countries has not made significant economic or social
progress. These countries have recorded low rates of economic growth, and
unfortunately, poverty and deprivation remain widespread.
Apart from the diverse development experiences of the developing countries,
there have been periods when economic and social progress has slowed. As was
noted earlier, economic and social development performance in the Third World
was impressive in the three decades following World War II. Since the mid-1970s,
there have been major reversals in social development in many parts of the Third
World. The poorest developing countries, and those that have become indebted,
have suffered the most. In many of these countries, social conditions have deterio
rated as a result of economic policies designed to restructure the economy and
ensure the repayment of foreign loans. Known as structural adjustment programs,
these measures are imposed as a condition for securing credit from the Interna
tional Monetary Fund and the World Bank. As a result of these programs, economic
austerity has increased and social conditions have often deteriorated (Watkins,
1995).
Economic and social progress in many African and some South American and
South Asian countries has been limited. Although social conditions in these nations
are better than they were at the end of World War II, social conditions have
worsened since the mid-1970s because of economic stagnation, conflict, and the
imposition of structural adjustment programs. In many of these countries, basic
social needs are not being met and social problems are increasing. There is
evidence to show that malnutrition is now more widespread, that poverty has risen,
and that health conditions have declined. Although there have been significant
improvements in educational opportunities, these are negatively affected by poor
social and economic conditions.
On the other hand, some developing countries have made significant economic
and social progress in recent decades. The most impressive economic and social
gains have taken place in East Asia where the region's activist governments
successfully adopted export-led economic policies that fostered rapid industriali
zation, created wage employment, and brought about significant improvements in
standards of living. Other developing nations, including South American countries
such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, have also experienced significant social gains.
Although these countries adopted import substitution policies and were not as
successful as the East Asian nations, their economic and social performance has
been impressive. Similar patterns may be observed in northern Africa, the Middle
East, and Southeast Asia, particularly in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand
where there has been significant improvement in meeting basic needs. However,
in many of these developing countries, development gains have been poorly
distributed so that poverty and deprivation remain highly visible even though rates
of economic growth have been relatively high. In these countries, the manifesta
tions of poverty contrast starkly with the conspicuous affluence of the wealthy and
higher-income earners. Distorted development remains a major problem in these
and other Third World nations.
Although less spectacular, some low-income developing countries such as
China, India, and Indonesia have also progressed. Although these countries con
tinue to have relatively high rates of poverty, they have recorded significant
improvements in social conditions over the past 50 years. In many of these
countries, social opportunities have also been enhanced although there are differ
ences in the extent to which opportunities have improved for women. Many Middle
Eastern and South Asian countries still discriminate openly against women. How
ever, even in these countries, educational opportunities and the participation of
women in the modern sector of the economy have improved (United Nations,
1993b, 1995).
It is likely that there will be a further diversification of social conditions in the
Third World in years to come. The countries of East Asia, which have been least
affected by global economic adversity, will probably continue to experience

further economic and social gains. On the other hand, it is doubtful that levels of
welfare in the poorest Third World nations will significantly improve under present
global conditions. Some South Asian nations, many countries in Africa, and some
of the Central and South American countries will need to deal with enormous
challenges if the standards of living of their people are to improve.
GLOBAL SOCIAL CONDITIONS TODAY
As has been shown in the preceding section, social conditions have differed greatly
at different times in different parts of the world. While the overall trend has been
one of steady improvements in social conditions for large numbers of people,
others have derived few benefits from the changes that have taken place. In some
cases, there have been major reversals in social conditions. Despite the undoubted
improvements that have taken place, the historical trend has been decidedly mixed.
Similar conclusions can be reached with reference to current social conditions.
While people in some parts of the world enjoy high standards of living, others live
in poverty. These variations are most evident when the different world regions are
compared. While the industrial nations have high levels of social welfare, Third
World countries have lower living standards. Differences of this kind are to be
found not only between the major world regions but within these regions as well.
While some Third World nations have made significant progress in enhancing the
well-being of their people, others have experienced an increase in poverty. There
are differences also within individual countries. For example, a mixture of afflu
ence and deprivation continues to characterize social conditions in the United
States.
As in the previous section, contemporary social conditions will be examined
with reference to the industrial nations, the former communist countries, and the
Third World. This latter category is broken down into the three major continental
regions of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. While further divisions
are possible, this breakdown permits a useful overview of social conditions in the
world today.
Social Conditions in the Industrial Nations
As a group, the industrial nations have met the basic needs of their citizens and
have provided them with opportunities to maximize their life chances. They have
also been able to manage social problems reasonably well. As was noted in the last
section, their success is related to a high degree of industrial development, which
has created wage employment on a significant scale. Also relevant is the role of
government intervention in social welfare. The high standards of living that people
in these countries enjoy is attributable to both economic development and effective
social programs.
56
••a THE ANALYSIS O F INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
TABLE 3.1 Western Industrial Countries

Infant Access to
GNP Per Life Expectancy Female Mortality Safe Drinking Intentional
Country Capita (US$) in Years Literacy (%) Per 1.000 Water (%) Homicides
Average 20,567 76 96 1 99 1,895

Greece 7,320 78 89 10 100 153
Portugal 9,130 75 81 10 100 475
New Zealand 12,600 76 97 9 97 79
Ireland 13,000 75 97 7 100 —
Spain 13,590 76 93 7 100 858
Australia 17,500 78 97 7 100 252
United Kingdom 18,060 78 97 7 100 820
Finland 19,300 76 97 5 100 143
Italy 19,840 78 97 8 100 2,483
Canada 19,970 78 97 7 100 525
Netherlands 20,950 78 97 7 100 1,886
Belgium 21,650 77 97 6 100 —
France 22,490 77 97 7 100 2,413
Austria 23,510 76 97 7 100 182
Germany 23,560 76 97 6 too 2,840
United States 24,740 76 97 9 — 20,610
Sweden 24,740 78 97 5 100 147
Norway 25,970 77 97 8 100 37
Denmark 26,730 75 97 7 100 298
Japan 31,490 80 97 4 100 1,676
Switzerland 35,760 78 97 6 100 136
SOURCE: Data were compiled from World Bank (1995) except for data for intentional homicides, which were compiled from
United Nations (1993a).
Table 3.1 provides a list of key economic and social indicators for 21 industrial
nations for which data are available (World Bank, 1995). As may be seen from the
table, these nations have a high average level of economic development as
measured by GNP per capita. The average GNP per capita is in excess of $20,000
per annum and is far higher than that of any other world region. Basic needs
performance is also high. Health, nutritional, housing, and other basic needs have
largely been satisfied. Life expectancy, which is a good measures of basic needs
attainment, is more than 76 years. Infant mortality, which is another reliable
indicator of basic needs attainment, is exceptionally low when compared with
other world regions. However, while basic needs have largely been met, it must be
recognized that in some areas such as housing, the situation is not always satisfac
tory. In some industrial countries, homelessness has become a serious problem and
shelter needs are still inadequately satisfied.
Social opportunities in the Western industrial nations are generally favorable.
Most people have access to good quality education, school enrollment rates are
high, tertiary education is well developed, and adult literacy is high. The female
literacy rate is a particularly good indicator of social opportunity, and as may be
seen from Table 3.1, 96% of women in the industrial nations are able to read and
write. However, there are significant differences in the female literacy rate between
different industrial nations. In countries such as Portugal and Greece, the female
literacy rate is below 90%.
Because the industrial countries have a high level of economic development,
opportunities to engage in productive employment and earn a monetary income
are also good. Although there are indications that opportunities for lifetime
employment in the corporate sector are shrinking, employment opportunities in
the industrial nations are higher than in other world regions.
This is not to deny that unemployment has become a problem. Economic
globalization and the greater use of labor-replacing technologies have reduced
employment opportunities for unskilled workers with the result that incomes
among this group have fallen. As scholars such as William Julius Wilson (1987,
1996) have shown, the increase in urban poverty and the emergence of the
underclass in many American cities is directly linked to these developments.
The industrial countries have low rates of poverty, but the problem has not been
eradicated, especially in countries such as the United States where 13.5% of the
population are reported to be in poverty (Burton, 1992). The lack of employment
opportunities and appropriate social policies designed to address the problem in
meaningful ways has led to the perpetuation of poverty and negative social
conditions among a sizable section of the population. This problem is related to
the country's extraordinary high rate of crime and violence. International crime
statistics collected by the United Nations (1993a) reveal that the rate of intentional
homicides in the United States far exceeds that of any other industrial country.
While countries such as France and Italy recorded fewer than 2,500 murders in the
mid-1980s, the figure in the United States was in excess of 20,000.
Ethnic discrimination and violence are social problems that are becoming more
serious in the industrial nations. The rise of neo-fascist groups that actively
encourage race hatred is a matter of great concern. Violence against ethnic minori
ties is now a frequent occurrence in several industrial countries. This trend has
been accompanied by the rise of anti-immigrant sentiments, which has resulted in
the adoption of legal measures designed to reduce the numbers of immigrants.
Similar measures have been introduced to reverse the affirmative action policies
that were introduced in many industrial nations in recent decades.
Social Conditions in the

As noted in the last section, the transition to a market economy has resulted in
major economic reversals in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe
and the western areas of the former Soviet Union. Economic decline in these
territories has, in turn, had an deleterious impact on social welfare. Unemployment
has increased, incomes have fallen, and poverty rates have increased.
As may be seen from Table 3.2, the average GNP for the former communist
countries is low. This is a reflection of the region's economic problems rather than
the absence of economic development. In addition, despite its low average GNP
TABLE 3.2 F o r m e r C o m m u n i s t Countries
Infant Access to
Country Capita (US$) in Years Literacy (%) Per 1,000 Water (%) Homicides
Average 1,878 69 — 21 82 426

Albania 340 72 — 29 100 —
Tajikistan 470 70 — 47 37 —
Georgia 580 73 — 19 84 —
Armenia 660 73 — 21 84 —
Azerbaijan 730 71 — 28 62 —
Krygyz Republic 850 69 — 34 62 —
Moldova 1,060 68 — 25 84 —
Romania 1,140 70 — 23 100 —
Bulgaria 1,140 71 — 14 100 313
Turkmenistan — 65 — 56 62 —
Lithuania 1,320 70 — 13 84 —
Slovak Republic 1,950 71 — 12 77 —
Latvia 2,010 69 — 14 — —
Ukraine 2,210 69 — 16 84 —
Poland 2,260 71 — 15 100 538
Russian Federation 2,340 65 — 21 84 —
Czech Republic 2,710 71 — 9 — —
Belarus 2,870 70 — 16 84 —
Estonia 3,080 69 — 16 84 —
Hungary 3,350 69 — 15 100 —
Slovenia 6,490 73 — 8 — —
per capita, basic needs performance compares favorably with other world regions.
Life expectancy is about 70 years, and while infant mortality rates are higher than
in the industrial nations, they are significantly lower than in the Third World.
Despite declines in agricultural production and soaring inflation, nutritional stand
ards in these nations are generally satisfactory. For example, in Russia the average
calorie consumption of 2,500 per person is adequate, and there is no evidence of
widespread hunger despite high inflation and a serious problem of unemployment
(Cohen, 1995). Another indication of basic needs attainment for the region as a
whole is provided in the high proportion of the population who has access to safe
drinking water. As may be seen in Table 3.2, more than 80% of the population has
access to safe drinking water.
However, it must be remembered that there are significant variations between
the former communist countries. While Eastern European countries such as Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech Republic have been able to meet the basic needs of their
citizens, this is not the case in some former communist countries such as Albania where
nutritional, health, and housing standards remain poor when compared with the rest
of Europe (United Nations Children's Fund, 1996; World Bank, 1995).
Most former communist countries have created effective opportunities for social
advance. During the communist period, education and the inculcation of skills
suited to the needs of an industrial economy were emphasized, and particular
attention was given to enhancing educational opportunities for women. As the
United Nations (1995) reports, labor force participation among women in the
former communist countries of Eastern Europe had already reached 70% in 1970,
while in the rest of Europe it was only 38%. Although the communist countries
were generally egalitarian, income and wealth disparities have widened in recent
years and social opportunities have deteriorated even though many would claim
that the creation of a free market economic system will eventually result in greater
opportunities for advancement.
The former communist countries have faced major social problems in the wake
of the dramatic economic and political changes that have taken place in recent
years. As was noted earlier, unemployment has soared and poverty has increased.
The United Nations (1993b) reports that there was a 40% increase in unemploy
ment in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s. The increase was perhaps most evident
in Poland where radical economic restructuring policies were introduced. As a
result of these policies, unemployment increased from about 6 . 1 % to 11.4% in
1991 when more than 2 million workers lost their jobs. The United Nations (1993b)
also notes that wages in many former communist countries declined during the
early 1990s. The elimination of state subsidies has had a deleterious impact on
levels of welfare, particularly among low-income and vulnerable groups. In
addition, because governments have been compelled to provide benefits to support
the unemployed, their social budgets have been put under serious strain. This has
resulted in the neglect of other social programs and contributed further to deterio
rating social conditions.
In addition to an increase in the problems of unemployment and poverty, crime
and corruption have also increased. But perhaps the most serious social problem
facing the region is the incidence of ethnic violence. The most dramatic case is the
former Yugoslavia where ethnic violence affected millions of people. Military
action in this region was accompanied by deliberate acts of terror against civilians.
In besieged cities, people were not only subjected to shelling but to slow starvation.
It is estimated that more than a thousand children died of malnutrition in Srebrenica
during the six-month period from October 1992 to May 1993 (Cohen, 1995). The
use of rape as an act of terror was widespread. The United Nations (1995) reports
that more than 11,000 women were raped in the former Yugoslavia during the
recent conflict. Ethnic violence has also been widespread in the former Soviet
Union where open conflict between different ethnic groups has resulted in massive
destruction and human suffering (United Nations, 1993b).
Social Conditions in the Third World
As was shown in the last section, there has been economic and social progress
in the developing countries since World War II. However, the overall develop
ment trend has been divergent. Some countries, such as the East Asian nations,
have experienced a high degree of economic modernization as well as social
progress. Others such as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, the Philippines, and
Thailand have performed reasonably well in economic terms but social conditions
remain very uneven. A third group of countries, found chiefly in Africa, have not
experienced a significant degree of economic or social development. In these
countries, debt, conflict, and other factors have impeded progress or even resulted
in deteriorating social conditions. There is evidence to show that development
trends will continue to diverge in the future.
Because of these divergent trends, it makes little sense to describe contemporary
social conditions in the Third World as a whole. Instead, the developing countries
will be separated into the major continental regions. As may be seen in Tables 3.3,
3.4, and 3.5, key social indicators for these different regional groupings differ
significantly. Although it is also possible to classify the developing countries in
terms of the level of development described earlier, it is easier to comprehend the
current situation on a geographic basis, and there is, in any case, an overlap
between the two. As was noted earlier, the countries with the lowest levels of
development are to be found largely in Africa.
Conditions in Asia
The Asian countries have the highest GNP per capita in the developing world,
although there are, of course, significant differences within the region. GNP per
capita is highest in the East Asian countries and lowest in the South Asian nations.
While the GNP per capita in South Korea is $7,660, it is only $300 in India.
Nevertheless, most Asian countries have made significant progress in meeting
basic needs. Asia continues to have the highest absolute number of people living
in poverty, but the proportion is declining. Although these declines are most
marked in East Asian countries such as South Korea and Taiwan, there have been
reductions in other parts of Asia as well. The World Bank (1990) estimated that
35% of Asia's population were in poverty. In 1995, Kevin Watkins estimated that
this figure had fallen to 30%. The greatest declines took place in East Asia where
it is estimated that only 4% of the population will be in poverty by the year 2000.
In South Asia, the poverty rate was 52% in 1985; by 1990 it had fallen to 49% and
is estimated to decline further to 38% by the year 2000 (Watkins, 1995). Marc
Cohen (1994) reports that the incidence of absolute poverty in China fell from 3 3 %
in 1970 to 10% in 1990. In India, the poverty rate declined from 4 8 % to 2 5 % during
the same period even though the absolute numbers of people in poverty increased
due to population growth. However, in some parts of Asia such as Afghanistan
welfare levels have deteriorated dramatically due to extended civil conflict.
Nutritional standards in Asian countries have also improved, but the situation is
far from satisfactory (Cohen, 1994). Nearly half of the region's adult population
consumes an inadequate number of calories per day. The incidence of malnutrition
among children is also high. In 1990, about 62% of children in South Asian
countries such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, and Pakistan were under
weight. In Bangladesh, the proportion is 65%. The incidence of malnutrition is
lower in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, but even here, pockets of malnutrition
persist. In some countries such as Thailand, where rates of economic growth have
been impressive, malnutrition remains widespread in the north and northeast of
TABLE 3.3 Asian Countries
Infant Access to
Average 5,021 65 59 50 70 2,332

Nepal 190 54 13 96 37 341
Bangladesh 220 56 22 106 78 2,847
Laos 280 52 — 95 28 —
India 300 61 34 80 75 —
Pakistan 430 62 21 88 50 —
China 490 69 62 30 71 11,510
Sri Lanka 600 72 83 17 60 2,069
Indonesia 740 63 68 56 42 1,369
Myanmar — 58 72 82 33 —
Yemen — 51 26 117 — —
Philippines 850 67 89 42 81 —
Papua New Guinea 1,130 56 38 67 33 —
Jordan 1,190 70 70 29 99 66
Thailand 2,110 69 90 36 72 —
Iran — 68 43 35 89 —
Turkey 2,970 69 71 62 91 —
Malaysia 3,140 71 70 13 78 386
Oman 4,850 — 71 57 — —
Korea, Republic 7,660 71 93 11 78 —
Saudi Arabia — 70 48 28 95 —
Israel 13,920 77 — 9 100 —
Hong Kong 18,060 79 — 7 100 71
Singapore 19,850 75 97.5 6 100 71
United Arab
Emirates 21,430 74 — 18 100 —
the country. In countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, malnutrition is directly

associated with military and political conflict (Cohen, 1995).
Nevertheless, life expectancy in the region is almost 67 years. Although life
expectancy in South Asia is still below 60 years, even here it is still higher than in
Africa as a whole (United Nations, 1993b). Similarly, infant mortality rates in the
region continue to fall. Despite unsatisfactory nutritional standards, improvements
in basic health care and access to clean water supply have made a major contribu
tion to reducing infant deaths. More than two thirds of the region's population has
access to safe drinking water. This is a remarkable improvement over the situation
in 1980 when only 3 1 % had access to safe drinking water (United Nations
Children's Fund, 1995). Much of this success is attributable to government pro
grams designed to extend access to safe drinking water.
Asian countries have made significant strides in education, but here too signifi
cant differences are to be found between countries. While school enrollment and
particularly the enrollment of girls is highest in East Asian nations, the situation
is far from satisfactory in South Asia and the Middle East. While girls and boys in
East Asian countries have equal access to primary education, significant differ
ences persist in the Middle East. Nevertheless, even here, the entry of girls into
primary education has increased in recent years (United Nations, 1995). There have
also been improvements in literacy rates throughout the region, but major differ
ences persist between different Asian countries. The United Nations (1993b)
reports that while 7 6 % of the adult population in East Asia is literate, only 46% in
South Asia is literate. In the Middle East, the figure is 52%. Female literacy for
the region as a whole is comparatively low. However, in some South Asian and
Middle Eastern countries, governments have been actively promoting literacy
among women (United Nations, 1995).
An assessment of the extent to which governments seek to enhance opportunities
through education is provided by UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund,
1995), which has calculated the national educational performance gaps for many
developing countries. This indicator is based on a comparison of the numbers of
children completing five years of primary schooling with the average completion
rate for other countries at similar levels of GNP. The gap is expressed in percentage
points. For example, UNICEF found that primary school completion rates in China
were about 30% higher than in other countries at a similar level of economic
development. Many other Asian countries also performed well on this indicator.
Only Pakistan, Bhutan, and Afghanistan were reported to have lower completion
rates than other countries at a similar level of economic development.
Despite progress, many Asian countries continue to face serious social prob
lems. Housing conditions in many Asian countries remain unsatisfactory, and with
industrial development, environmental pollution has reached dangerous levels
(United Nations, 1993b). Ethnic and civil conflict has also created a major refugee
problem, especially in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Although the situation in
Southeast Asia has stabilized and many refugees have returned home, conflict in
the Middle East and Central Asia continues and many millions of people live in
exile in highly unsatisfactory conditions.
Conditions in Central and South America
Central and South American countries have a lower average GNP per capita than
Asian countries, although here too there are significant differences between coun
tries. While Uruguay has a GNP per capita of $3,830, the figure for Nicaragua is
only $340. The region's comparatively low average GNP per capita reflects
deteriorating economic conditions caused by inflation, a high degree of indebted
ness, and economic stagnation. Zero or negative economic growth rates were
recorded in many Central and South American countries during the late 1980s and
1990s, and this was accompanied by a fall in real incomes, particularly among
lower-income groups (United Nations, 1993b).
The imposition of structural adjustment programs designed to secure debt
repayments has exacerbated the problem. Many middle- and low-income wage
earners lost their jobs as governments reduced public employment and as private
sector firms cut production. The private sector has made increasing use of tempo
Social Conditions in Global Context
TABLE 3.4 Central and South American Countries

Infant Access to
Average 2,456 70 82 35 68 3,005
Nicaragua 340 67 - 51 53 -
Honduras 600 68 71 41
Bolivia 760 60 71 73 46
Guatemala 1,100 65 47 46 60
Ecuador 1,200 69 84 49 58
Dominican Republic 1,230 70 82 40 62
El Salvador 1.320 67 70 45 41 -
Colombia 1,400 70 86 36 - -
Jamaica 1,440 74 99 14 72 449
Peru 1,490 66 79 63 58 946
Paraguay 1,510 70 88 37 33 -
Costa Rica 2,150 76 93 14 94 103
Panama 2,600 73 88 24 83 -
Venezuela 2,840 72 83 23 89
Brazil 2,930 67 80 57 96
Chile 3,170 74 93 16 86
Mexico 3,610 71 85 35 78
Uruguay 3,830 73 96 19 164
Trinidad and Tobago 3,830 72 - 18 96 101
Argentina 7,220 72 95 24 64 40
Puerto Rico 7,000 75 11
rary and casual labor. While only 11% of private sector jobs in Latin America in
1985 were casual, this figure had increased to more than 50% in 1993 (Watkins,
1995). In some countries, public employees accepted salary reductions rather than
face unemployment. Many displaced wage earners were compelled to enter the
informal sector to survive. However, the expansion of the informal sector merely
increased economic competition, and as the United Nations (1993b) reports,
informal sector earnings are estimated to have fallen by as much as 40% during
the late 1980s and early 1990s. In the modern wage sector, declines in incomes of
between 10%and 17% were recorded. Rural households generally fared better, but
even here incomes stagnated.
On the other hand, the wealthy and those in higher-income occupations pros-
pered. The region's high levels of income inequality became even more skewed as
the earnings of those in middle- and lower-income groups declined. Reflecting the
region's colonial and feudal history, the countries of Central and South America
have long been recognized to be among the most unequal in the world, and the
problem of distorted development remains acute. The wealthy were not only able
to avoid the impact of the economic problems of the 1980s, but many benefited
during this period. Because interest rates were high, those with capital were able
to secure favorable rates of return on investments. Landholders and those with
access to foreign currency were particularly fortunate (United Nations, 1993b).
As a result of economic stagnation, improvements in basic needs attainment
slowed. This development is illustrated with reference to data concerning malnu
trition among children. While malnutrition among children under the age of five
declined from 19% to 15% in Central America between 1975 and 1990, this trend
has now been reversed, and the incidence of malnutrition has increased (Cohen,
1995). It is estimated that the incidence of poverty has also increased. While 19%
of the region's population was in poverty in 1985 (World Bank, 1990), it increased
to 22% in 1990 and is projected to increase to 2 5 % by the year 2000 (Watkins,
1995). Nevertheless, life expectancy in the region as a whole, which is almost 69
years, is reasonably good. The average infant mortality rate of 35 per 1,000 is also
lower than in the other regions. Countries with disproportionately higher infant
mortality rates include Bolivia, Peru, and Brazil (World Bank, 1995). Almost 70%
of the population has access to safe drinking water. In some countries such as Costa
Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, access to safe water exceeds 90%. Despite the
region's high degree of inequality, many Central and South American governments
have introduced social policies that have helped to meet the basic needs of their
people.
Access to opportunities in the Central and South American region is generally
better than in many other parts of the Third World, but even here, economic
stagnation as well as entrenched inequality and poverty continue to retard access
to education and productive employment. Unlike some other parts of the Third
World, the region does not have strong religious and cultural impediments to
educating girls, and not surprisingly, the female literacy rate is higher than in the
other Third World regions. On the other hand, due to religious and cultural factors,
the rate of unsafe abortions is the highest in the world (United Nations, 1995).
While school enrollment in Central and South American countries is compara
tively high, only six out of 20 countries for which information is available exceed
the national educational performance gap requirement computed by UNICEF
(United Nations Children's Fund, 1995). As was noted earlier, this indicator
compares the numbers of children completing five years of primary schooling with
the average completing rate for other countries at similar levels of GNP. These
countries are Cuba, Jamaica, Uruguay, Chile, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Coun
tries that are more than 20 percentage points below the norm include Honduras,
Colombia, El Salvador, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Haiti.
The Central and South American region does not have the same degree of ethnic
and civil conflict as do Africa and Asia, but even here, political conflict has taken
its toll. Also, discrimination and violence against indigenous people persists.
Crime and violence associated with the narcotics trade is also a serious problem.
Homelessness, the numbers of street children, and the huge squatter settlements
of many Latin American cities are another major challenge. Although some regard
squatter settlements as a spontaneous solution to the housing problem, others
regard them as centers of poverty, crime, and despair. These are problems that can
only be solved within the context of wider efforts to address the region's high levels
of inequality and serious problem of distorted development.
Conditions in Africa
The African countries are the least economically developed of the Third World,
and their social conditions remain unsatisfactory. These countries have not fared
well in recent years as economic adversity has seriously impeded development
efforts. Although there are significant variations in per capita income among the
African nations, the region's average GNP per capita is only $815 per annum.
Significantly higher per capita incomes are to be found in the countries of northern
Africa and in South Africa. However, while South Africa has a comparatively high
GNP per capita of $2,980, there are enormous variations in incomes among the
country's different ethnic groups. Although South Africa is the region's most
industrially developed economy, the basic needs of a sizable proportion of the
population have not been met.
Like the Central and South American countries, African countries have suffered
major economic reversals in recent years. This is due not only to indebtedness but
to the region's inability to diversify the economy. Its continued dependence on
agricultural and mineral commodities has resulted in falling foreign exchange
earnings and a scarcity of domestic capital for development. Other factors are civil
strife, corruption, and political upheavals, which have seriously affected economic
performance in many parts of the continent. In addition, the imposition of struc
tural adjustment programs in an attempt to meet debt obligations has harmed rather
than helped economic growth. As a result of structural adjustment, the poverty rate,
which was estimated to be 47% in 1985, has increased, and as Watkins (1995)
predicts, it is likely to increase further by the end of the century.
Deteriorating social conditions in the region are also revealed in an increase in
malnutrition. As Cohen (1995) reports, about 175 million African people or 37%
of the population are malnourished. Approximately 20% of women of childbearing
age are underweight. Food production has not kept pace with population growth,
and average food availability is below daily minimum requirements. Drought and
crop failure in the early 1990s exacerbated the problem, and more than 23 million
people became dependent on international food aid. Food production has also been
seriously disrupted by violence in many African countries including Angola,
Burundi, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Somalia.
Africa has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world and the lowest life
expectancy. Many African countries have infant mortality rates in excess of 100
per 1,000. Life expectancy is only 53 years, the lowest of all the world regions. In
some African countries such as Mozambique, Uganda, Malawi, Chad, and Niger,
life expectancy is lower than 50 years. The region's comparatively low levels of
basic needs attainment is further revealed in the fact that only 50% of the
population has access to safe drinking water. In some African countries, such as
Chad, the Central African Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone, less than
a quarter of the population has access to safe drinking water.
During the 1960s and 1970s, African countries made significant efforts to
enhance educational opportunities for young people. School enrollment increased
and literacy rates improved. However, in the absence of sustained economic
development, educational standards have fallen. There have also been serious
retrenchments in educational expenditures. Educational budgets have been slashed
TABLE 3.5 African Countries
Infant Access to
Average 815 52 35 94 49 611

Mozambique 90 46 21 146 22 —
Tanzania 90 52 — 84 52 —
Ethiopia 100 48 — 117 18 —
Sierra Leone 150 39 11 164 43 —
Uganda 180 45 35 114 15 —
Burundi 180 50 40 101 38 —
Malawi 200 45 — 142 53 153
Chad 210 48 18 120 — —
Madagascar 220 57 73 93 — —
Guinea-Bissau 240 44 24 138 25 —
Niger 270 47 17 122 59 —
Kenya 270 58 58 61 — —
Mali 270 46 24 157 49 —
Burkina Faso 300 47 9 129 67 —
Nigeria 300 51 39 83 42 —
Togo 340 55 31 83 71 —
Zambia 380 48 65 103 59 —
Central African
Republic 400 50 25 101 12 —
Benin 430 48 16 85 50 —
Ghana 430 56 51 79 56 —
Guinea 500 45 13 132 33 —
Mauritania 500 52 21 99 66 —
Zimbabwe 520 53 60 67 36 1,069
Ivory Coast 630 51 40 91 83 —

Lesotho 650 61 — 77 46 —
Senegal 750 50 25 67 51 —
Cameroon 820 57 43 61 34 —
Morocco 1,040 64 38 66 — —
Tunisia 1,720 68 56 42 67 —
Algeria 1,780 67 45 53 — —
Botswana 2,790 65 65 42 — —
South Africa 2,980 63 — 52 62 —
Mauritius 3,030 70 — 17 100 —
Gabon 4,960 54 48 92 72 —
in many African countries, and as UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund,

1995) reports, many now have low primary school completion rates. Of 35 African
countries for which data are available, only 13 exceed the national educational
performance gap. In this climate, it is not surprising that social opportunities for
women have stagnated. The female literacy rate is only 3 5 % , and in many African
countries where traditional religious and cultural beliefs are dominant, the situ
ation is even less favorable. The difference between male and female literacy
continues to be the worst in the world (United Nations, 1995).
In addition, employment opportunities for young people with educational quali
fications are limited. Many high school and university graduates cannot find work.
The situation has deteriorated further in recent years as people with jobs have
become unemployed as a result of the imposition of structural adjustment pro
grams. The United Nations (1993b) reports that public sector employment in many
African countries decreased significantly in the late 1980s. Some 45,000 govern
ment employees lost their jobs in Ghana in the 1980s. In Guinea, the figure was
40,000, while in Tanzania, it was 27,000 (United Nations, 1993b). Women's labor
force participation has dropped significantly during the past 20 years. Africa is the
only world region where this decline has occurred (United Nations, 1995).
In addition to serious economic problems, civil strife, climatic adversity, and
HIV/AIDS infection present serious obstacles to future social progress. Many
African countries experienced severe drought during recent years exacerbating the
serious difficulties caused by economic stagnation. In addition, the countries of
the Sahelian region face continued economic and social difficulties due to deser
tification.
AIDS is, of course, not confined to Africa, but the epidemic has probably taken
a greater toll in the region than anywhere else. The United Nations (1993b) reports
that about half of all those infected with HIV live in Africa and that almost one in
three AIDS victims is a child. In addition, about 10 million African children have
been orphaned as a result of the AIDS-related deaths of their parents. AIDS has
also had a serious impact on the economy. In a study undertaken in Uganda, it was
found that the agricultural, transport, and retail marketing systems had been
seriously disrupted due to illnesses and deaths from AIDS. Another study predicted
that 56% of Zambia's copper miners will be infected with HIV before the end of
the century (United Nations, 1993b).
Civil and ethnic conflict has taken a massive toll in Africa. Not only have
millions perished or been permanently disabled as a result of the violence, but the
refugee problem is now of huge proportions. To make matters worse, services for
refugees are hopelessly inadequate. Many live in makeshift camps in appalling
conditions. Faced with a large inflow of needy people, the governments of the host
countries are unable to cope. For example, more than 750,000 refugees from the
conflict in Liberia fled to neighboring countries in 1989. More than 250,000 went
to the Ivory Coast, which simply has not been able to provide the shelter, sanitary
facilities, water, and food the refugees need (United Nations, 1993b). One particu
larly distressing aspect of these conflicts is the involvement of children in war. As
UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund, 1996) reports, many young boys are
now conscripted into military units where they are brutally socialized into perpetu
ating violence against other human beings. Continuing civil conflict is likely to
exacerbate the problem and contribute further to Africa's highly unsatisfactory
social conditions.
CHAPTER FOUR
SOCIAL WELFARE AROUND

THE WORLD
Unlike the previous chapter, which described social conditions around the world,
this chapter discusses social welfare activities in different countries. As was shown
in Chapter 1, these activities are organized around several major social welfare
institutions. It is by focusing on these institutions that a comprehensive account of
social welfare around the world can be provided. Different social welfare institu
tions have emerged in different parts of the world over the years to promote
people's welfare. The sum of all the activities that promote human welfare may be
called social welfare effort. Although this term has been used in the past to refer
to government expenditures on social programs, it can also be used to connote all
types of social welfare endeavors.
Although people's well-being is promoted by different institutions, interna
tional research into social welfare has been primarily concerned with govern
ment social welfare programs. Government programs are also known as state or
statutory social welfare. Generally, research into state welfare has concentrated on
the social services. While the emphasis on studying state welfare was not pre
viously questioned, it is now recognized that more attention needs to be paid to
nonstatutory provisions. In addition to the government, religious organizations,
philanthropic associations, and professionals such as social workers play a major
role in enhancing people's welfare. As more research into the way these institutions
operate is undertaken, social welfare in the global context will be more compre
hensively understood.
However, at this time, most of the literature on international social welfare deals
with state provisions. It is not surprising that most studies of international social
68
Social Welfare Around the World 69
welfare have focused on these provisions. The role of the state has increased
significantly during this century, and despite recent retrenchments, governments
remain the primary provider of social welfare services in the world today. For this
reason, this chapter focuses on state welfare programs. However, the chapter
begins by attempting to summarize the key features of other forms of social
welfare. These include nonformal provision, philanthropic effort, professional
social work, and recent developments in commercial social welfare.
N O N S T A T U T O R Y SOCIAL WELFARE:
A GLOBAL OVERVIEW
As was noted earlier, social welfare effort may be defined as the sum of all the
activities that promote human well-being. Social welfare is not only provided
through the state but through other institutionalized mechanisms including non-
formal, philanthropic, professional, and commercial activities. The discussion of
these diverse social welfare activities provided in this chapter is in keeping with
the recognition of welfare pluralism in social policy research today. As many
writers (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989; Hadley & Hatch, 1981; Johnson, 1987; Rein &
Rainwater, 1986; Rose, 1986) argue, the nature and extent of social welfare in
society can only be understood if the contribution of nonstatutory forms of social
provision is recognized.
However, because the international literature on social welfare services and
programs has focused largely on state welfare, information about the other welfare
institutions is limited. Nevertheless, more information about nonstatutory welfare
in different parts of the world is being collected, and it is possible to provide an
overview of some of its major features. In the following discussion, an attempt
will be made to summarize this research. The more extensive information that has
been collected on state welfare systems will be discussed later in the chapter.
Nonformal Social Welfare Around the World
Nonformal social welfare effort is composed of the numerous day-to-day activi

ties that promote the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Many
of these activities are concerned with economic survival and involve the routine
use of labor power as the primary means of meeting human needs. Other activities
have a more explicit welfare function in that they require that people become
directly involved in social welfare activities such as almsgiving. Nonformal
welfare effort is often institutionalized in the sense that it arises from culturally
mandated obligations imposed on families, kin groups, neighborhoods, communi
ties, and even whole cultures.
Nonformal welfare institutions are to be found in all societies, but it is only
recently that social scientists have begun to study them systematically. It was
previously assumed that nonformal institutions would become less important as
government social welfare programs expanded. These institutions were believed

to be incapable of promoting people's welfare effectively in industrial societies,
and with the expansion of state provisions, it was thought that they would decline
in importance. Today, the nonformal system is being viewed differently not only
because state provisions are being retrenched but because the nonformal system's
role in enhancing social welfare is now recognized.
Research into informal social networks in the industrial countries has shown
that most people in need turn to family members, friends, and neighbors for help.
They do so even when government services are available. In the early 1980s,
several important studies on the role of informal support networks were published
in the industrial countries (Biegel, Shore, & Gordon, 1984; Froland, Pancoast,
Chapman, & Kimbolo, 1981;Wenger, 1984; Whittaker & Garbarino, 1983). These
studies reveal that the nonformal system was widely used to supplement statutory
services for elderly people, people with mental illnesses, families with marital
problems, drug abusers, and other needy groups. These studies also recommended
that governments take steps to enhance the effectiveness of the nonformal system
and facilitate its functioning.
Similar research has been undertaken in the developing countries where it
appears that nonformal welfare activities are often highly regulated by the tradi
tional culture. Indeed, Franz and Kebeet von Benda-Beckmann (1994; Benda-
Beckmann, Benda-Beckmann, Brun, & Hirtz, 1988) think that these activities are
so highly organized that it makes little sense to call them nonformal. Several
studies have shown that these institutions are the primary means by which people
enhance their welfare in Third World countries. It is for this reason that writers such
as Neil Gilbert (1976) and James Midgley (1994c) recommend that governments
should support the nonformal system and integrate it with statutory provisions.
A great variety of activities fall under the heading of nonformal social welfare.
They may be classified into four categories. The first and most common consists
of all the culturally determined obligations and practices that operate through
family, kin, friendship, neighborhood, and community support networks. The
second type is composed of culturally determined obligations emanating from
wider religious or cultural norms. It involves assistance to people whom Richard
Titmuss (1971) calls "anonymous strangers." Assistance to strangers is most
frequently expressed in the form of almsgiving. The third category is designed to
enhance the welfare of the members of cooperative associations. Examples include
funeral societies, rotating credit societies, and informal savings societies that exist
in many communities, particularly in Third World countries. As Kenneth Little
(1965) shows in his study of urban squatter settlements in West Africa, mutual
benefit societies not only provide financial assistance but give nonmaterial support
as well. The fourth category involves cooperative endeavors through which people
promote community welfare. For example, people may share labor to engage in
joint economic activities or to establish social and other communal facilities. They
may collaborate with each other to enhance their security and protect local
interests. They may also work together to engage in festivals or other cultural
activities that enhance community solidarity.
Although nonformal activities of this kind are a primary form of welfare effort
in many parts of the world, the nonformal system cannot function effectively on
its own and needs to be supplemented by other forms of provision. The belief that
it can replace statutory forms of social welfare is not supported by the evidence.
Research undertaken in developing countries shows that the nonformal sector's
ability to provide adequate social protection is diminishing in the face of industri
alization, social change, and population mobility (Cockburn, 1980; de Bruijn,
1994; World Bank, 1994). Another factor is that widespread poverty prevents the
effective operation of the nonformal system even when it remains culturally
vigorous. If people are too poor to assist their needy relatives and friends, then the
nonformal sector ceases to be effective. Mirjam de Bruijn (1994) has shown how
drought, famine, and poverty in the Sahelian region of Africa has limited people's
ability to assist their relatives and friends even when they want to. For this reason,
policy approaches that can support, strengthen, and revitalize the system are
urgently needed.
G l o b a l P h i l a n t h r o p i c Effort
Nonformal social welfare activities are not only institutionalized through cus
tom and cultural expectation but also through religious mandate. Although the
practice of giving assistance to the needy is widespread, religious injunctions in
some cultures make this activity obligatory. The practice of tithing in Christianity
and zakat in Islam are examples of religiously mandated philanthropic activities.
In addition to encouraging almsgiving and other beneficial acts, religious philan
thropy has been institutionalized in the form of organized activities undertaken by
priests or members of monastic orders. It is also expressed through the public
display of philanthropic religiosity by political leaders. Indeed, the term philan
thropy comes from the Greek word philanthropia, which connoted the charitable
duties of the Byzantine emperors, who were expected to engage in public acts of
charity to demonstrate their concern for needy citizens.
In Latin America, many orphanages, hospitals, and other residential institutions
were established in colonial times by wealthy settlers as an act of religious piety.
It is believed that the first of these institutions or beneficencias as they are known,
was created by the conquistador Hernan Cortes in Mexico City in 1521 (Mesa-
Lago, 1978). The lay brotherhoods or confraternia, which were comprised of
wealthy and middle-class citizens, were also responsible for many charitable
activities (Russell-Wood, 1969). Today, religious organizations are involved in a
great variety of social welfare activities in Latin America. Many voluntary welfare
organizations are either owned by or affiliated with religious bodies, and many
others are inspired by religious belief to engage in philanthropy. Of course,
religious charities are also involved in the provision of welfare programs in many
other parts of the world as well.
In addition to religious charities, secular philanthropy has emerged as a major
welfare institution. Many secular charities were established in the 19th century
when there was a rapid acceleration of philanthropic activity in the industrial
countries. This trend was particularly marked in the United States. The growth of
voluntary associations in the United States was noted by the French writer Alexis
de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America, published in 1835. He was
amazed at the country's large number of voluntary associations. In Europe, aristo
crats and governments were likely to help those in need, while in the United States,
help was more likely to come from voluntary associations.
Secular philanthropy also evolved in Western Europe in the 19th century.
Voluntary effort was well developed in Britain at this time, particularly in the urban
centers where industrialization and urbanization were accompanied by a high
incidence of poverty and deprivation. As people migrated to the cities in search of
work, they were concentrated into slums where child neglect, alcoholism, domestic
violence, and other social problems became widespread. Middle-class philanthro
pists established a variety of organizations to deal with these problems. In addition
to specialized charities that catered to particular groups of needy people, such as
disabled people, widows, and abandoned children, charities that gave relief to all
kinds of poor people were also created. One of the best known of these was the
Charity Organization Society, founded in London in 1869. As will be shown in
Chapter 8, the society made extensive use of women volunteer workers, whose
activities laid the foundation for professional social work.
Today, countries such as the United States have a huge voluntary sector. Lester
Salamon (1995) reports that there were more than 1.1 million nonprofit organiza
tions in the United States in the early 1990s. About 220,000 of these organizations
were conventional welfare associations providing services to those in need. Ap
proximately another 400,000 were "member-serving" associations such as social
clubs, mutual aid societies, and labor unions. About 350,000 were religious
organizations, and about 140,000 were social action agencies. About 30,000 were
foundations that provide funding for various philanthropic activities. These vol
untary organizations spent about $398 billion in 1993. Their income from public
donations was about $ 126 billion with the remainder coming from the charges they
levied for services and from government support (Brilliant, 1995).
Although the United States is believed to have the largest nonprofit sector in the
world, many European countries also have well-developed systems of voluntary
social welfare. Indeed, Salamon (1995) reports that the voluntary sector is expand
ing in many of these countries. He reports that in the 1960s, approximately 10,000
voluntary associations were established in France each year; by the late 1980s, the
number exceeded 50,000 per annum. In the first half of the 1980s, the income of
voluntary organizations in Britain increased by more than 200%. In Italy, the
number of voluntary organizations increased by more than 40% between the
mid-1970s and the mid-1980s.
Philanthropic activities are also expanding in the former communist societies
where voluntary effort was previously underdeveloped. Although voluntary activ
ity was not encouraged under communism, some Eastern European countries
began to develop a voluntary sector in the early 1980s. Hungary created a national
coordinating body for voluntary organizations in 1982, and Poland enacted a law
to regulate nonprofit activities in 1984. As Salamon (1995) reports, voluntary
activity has increased dramatically in these countries since the collapse of com
munism. By 1992, several thousand voluntary organizations had been registered
in Poland, while in Hungary, no fewer than 6,000 foundations and 11,000 voluntary
associations had been registered. In 1991, the Foundation Forum was created in
Bulgaria to coordinate the work of voluntary associations, and about 30 newly
created organizations joined the forum.
Formal voluntary organizations have also expanded in the developing countries.

Charitable societies were established in the urban centers during colonial times by
settlers or Western-educated, local people and were often modeled on similar
organizations in the metropolitan countries (MacPherson, 1982). These philan
thropic activities have since been augmented by the activities of international
organizations, which often promote developmental forms of social welfare. Brian
Smith (1990) estimates that more than 4,600 Western voluntary organizations
operate in Third World countries. In addition, many nonformal associations rang
ing from local cooperative societies to religiously inspired charitable and social
action groups have been created in developing nations.
As state welfare provision is further retrenched, it is likely that philanthropic
social welfare will become more important and that governments throughout the
world will encourage its expansion. However, it should be recognized that the
success of the voluntary sector depends on adequate government support. Despite
the extent of voluntary effort in countries such as the United States, extensive
subsidies from the federal government are still required. As Salamon (1995) notes,
the voluntary sector would not be able to function without this support. On the
other hand, Marvin Olasky (1992), an American writer, claims that the voluntary
sector will function far more effectively if it becomes totally independent of
government. He believes that people are by nature altruistic and that their natural
tendency toward compassion has been tragically harmed by state interference.
Attempts by the state to package and organize what should be private and personal
altruistic response has been disastrous. Olasky believes that it is when compassion
is unfettered that the needy will be properly taken care of.
Social Work in International Context
Professional social work emerged out of the philanthropic activities of organi

zations such as the Charity Organization Society and the settlement houses. These
organizations provided a vocational basis for the development of professional
social work. As charity organizations and settlement work expanded, professional
training schools for social workers were established at prestigious universities in
Britain and the United States. The London School of Economics, the University
of Chicago, and Columbia University in New York were just a few of the univer
sities that created professional social work schools in the early decades of this
century. In time, professional social work education spread to many other coun
tries. Today, there are more than 1,700 professional schools of social work in more
than 100 countries (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995).
Social work is a significant institution for promoting human welfare in many
parts of the world today. Social workers are to be found in a great variety of practice
settings including child welfare, medical social work, marital counseling, mental
health practice, group work, corrections, and community development. As recent
studies (Hokenstad, Khinduka, & Midgley, 1993; Watts, Elliott, & Mayadas, 1995)
have shown, social work continues to spread around the world. For example, since
the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, social
74 THE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
work is being accepted as a means for enhancing people's welfare. There is also a
growing interest in social work in China (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995).
The role of social work in promoting human welfare raises many issues and
involves a more lengthy discussion than is possible in this chapter. For this reason,
social work as an applied field of international social welfare will be examined in
more detail in Chapter 8.
Commercial Social Welfare:

A New International Trend?
In addition to using nonformal, philanthropic, and other forms of assistance,

many people rely on commercial institutions to promote their welfare. In the
United States and several other industrial countries, commercial firms are now
important providers of social services. These firms provide income maintenance,
health, nursing home, and other forms of care and are motivated by a desire to
make profits. Of course, the use of markets for social welfare purposes is not a new
development. People have traditionally met their needs for shelter by using the
commercial market rather than philanthropic or state provisions. Private providers
in the fields of health care have also been widely used in the past. Similarly, it was
through acquiring private insurance that middle-class people protected their de
pendents against the contingencies of death, disability, and illness. Occupational
pensions and annuity insurance have also been used by middle-class people in the
industrial countries to provide for their needs in old age.
Since the 1980s, there has been a major effort in several industrial countries to
expand the commercial sector as an alternative to state provision. This develop
ment has been particularly marked in the United States where commercial contrac
tors are being extensively used by public agencies to deliver a variety of social
services. As Neil and Barbara Gilbert (1989) point out, hospitals that were pre
viously operated by nonprofit organizations are being sold to the highest bidder,
nursing homes for elderly persons and day care centers for children are largely
owned by commercial interests, and social workers are increasingly employed by
for-profit agencies. In addition to the more frequent use of commercial contracting,
the belief that the market is the best source of social protection, education, and
housing is being reaffirmed. The use of the market as a major institution for
promoting people's well-being is once again being extolled.
A major impetus for the expansion of the commercial sector in the United States
came after the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 when privately run
nursing homes were permitted to claim reimbursement for services provided to
elderly persons. As this new source of revenue was recognized, larger commercial
firms began to enter the field. During the 1970s, expenditures on nursing home care
increased rapidly, and by the early 1980s, a $25 billion per year nursing home
industry had been established. By this time, more than 7 0 % of all nursing homes
were being managed by for-profit firms, and today the field is dominated by several
major corporations (Karger & Stoesz, 1994).
The involvement of the for-profit sector in nursing home care in the United
States has now expanded to many other fields, and a variety of social welfare
programs that were previously provided by state or voluntary agencies have been
commercialized. Child welfare, home health care, correctional services, services
to mentally ill persons, and programs for developmentally disabled people are now
provided by commercial firms either through purchase of service contracting or
through reimbursement for the services they provide. The trend toward contracting
with commercial providers will no doubt continue and become even more com
monplace in the future.
Supporters of the commercialization of social welfare claim that for-profit firms
are subject to the market and thus provide high-quality care at low cost. The logic
of the market ensures efficiency. Reviewing the limited data on this question,
Gilbert and Gilbert (1989) conclude that there is indeed evidence to show that
for-profit providers reduce costs. They note that several studies have found that
commercial social service firms are able to operate at lower costs than either state
or voluntary agencies. On the other hand, they point out that there is evidence to
show that the quality of their services is not always of a high standard. While there
will no doubt be much more research into this issue in the future, studies into the
effectiveness of commercial social welfare are likely to be clouded by ideological
proclivities. Both those on the right and left of the political spectrum hold strong
views on this question.
Although few other countries have enthusiastically emulated the American trend
toward the commercialization of the social services, it is likely that for-profit
services will expand in many other countries. In addition to Britain, it is probable
that other European countries such as France and Germany will follow. Although
few developing countries are in a position to create viable markets in social
welfare, there are pressures for them to retrench government provision and privat
ize their social services.
International Social Development
The United Nations World Summit on Social Development, held in Copenhagen

in 1995, drew attention to the social development approach, which has been
neglected by social welfare writers in the industrial nations. Social development
is an approach for promoting human well-being that seeks to link social programs
directly with economic development efforts. Its proponents argue that economic
development should be harnessed for social purposes. However, they point out that
economic growth in many countries has failed to ensure that the standard of living
of the population as a whole is raised. Many countries have recorded high rates of
economic growth without experiencing a concomitant degree of social progress.
As was noted in the last chapter, this situation is referred to as distorted develop
ment. Distorted development occurs as a result of a mismatch between economic
and social development. The problem is not an absence of economic development
but rather a failure to harmonize economic and social objectives and to ensure that
the benefits of economic progress reach the population as a whole. Social devel
opment seeks to remedy this problem by ensuring that economic development
raises incomes and levels of welfare for all.
Proponents of social development also believe that as far as possible, social

programs should contribute positively to economic development. Social programs
today are primarily concerned with remedial or maintenance activities, which, it
is alleged, detract from economic performance. The attack on government social
programs by radical right political movements has partly been based on the claim
that these programs harm the economy and lower standards of living for all. While
these claims are dubious, they have been widely accepted, and proponents of
government welfare have not been able to counter them effectively. Because social
development places emphasis on social interventions that promote economic
development, it may have electoral appeal and provide a credible alternative to the
right's insistence that government social programs should be disbanded.
It is possible to augment conventional social remedial and maintenance-oriented
welfare programs with programs that generate positive rates of return to govern
ment social expenditures. These productivist programs, as they are known, do not
consume scarce resources on unproductive social welfare but instead contribute
positively to economic development. Programs of this kind have been introduced
in different countries at different times, but it is in the context of Third World
development that social development first emerged as a coherent approach in social
welfare. While social development has been largely implemented in the developing
countries, it is now attracting much more attention in the industrial nations and
may in the future emerge as a mainstream approach in social welfare. Because of
social development's growing importance, it will be examined in more detail in
Chapter 9.
STATE SOCIAL WELFARE IN

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
The expansion of state responsibility for social welfare is one of the most distinc
tive features of social and political life of this century. Throughout the world,
governments have intervened to promote the welfare of their citizens. As was noted
earlier, state social welfare intervention has been most extensive in the industrial
nations and particularly in the nations of Western Europe. By the mid-1980s, the
Western industrial countries were, on average, spending 2 5 % of gross domestic
product (GDP) on education, health, social security, and other social services
(Hills, 1990). However, the governments of the former communist countries of
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were also extensively involved in social
welfare. Although the developing countries do not spend as much on social
programs, they too have expanded their social programs.
This section traces the historical roots of state welfare and offers a brief
descriptive overview of the key features of these social provisions in different
regions of the world. This overview is intended to identify some of the key
differences between state social welfare in the Western industrial nations, the
former communist countries, and the Third World. This account of welfare activi
ties can be contrasted with the account of global social conditions that was
provided in the previous chapter.
Sociol Welfare Around the World 77
In discussing differences in state welfare provisions in different world regions,

attention will be focused on the "big five" social services described in Chapter 1:
income maintenance, health care, education, housing, and social work or the
personal social services. Although reference will be made to the other social
services and to the role of fiscal and occupational welfare (Titmuss, 1958), there
is a serious paucity of information about the way these practices operate interna
tionally. Nevertheless, many governments have used subsidies and occupational
incentives to promote the welfare of their citizens.
Evolution of State Welfare
Despite the fact that government involvement in social welfare now takes place
on an unprecedented scale, it is not a recent phenomenon. Historians have shown
how rulers have dealt with welfare issues through legislation and administrative
intervention since ancient times. Rollin Chambliss (1954) reports that Hammu
rabi's Code in Mesopotamia contained numerous injunctions touching on welfare
matters. Summarily, Carmelo Mesa-Lago (1978) reveals that the Aztec and Inca
civilizations required local communities to cultivate a communal plot of land to
support widows, orphans, and the infirm. In ancient India, the Hindu ruler Chan
dragupta Maurya enacted numerous statutes that sought to protect vulnerable and
needy groups (Hallen, 1967). In the 7th-century Islamic world, the Caliph Omar
established public treasuries or beit-al-mal into which zakat contributions were
paid to support the needy (Hasan. 1965).
Despite these early examples of the involvement of governments in social
welfare, nonformal institutions and religious philanthropy remained the primary
form of social welfare for many centuries. A major change took place with the
enactment of the Elizabethan Poor Law in England in 1601. With economic
upheavals and increased population mobility, poverty became conspicuous, and
for the first time, a national system of poor relief managed by central government
was implemented. Previous statutory measures that sought to suppress vagrancy
and encourage poor relief were consolidated into the Elizabethan statute. The Poor
Law was adopted in the British colonies of North America and formed the basis
for statutory social welfare provision in the New World. On the other hand,
religious philanthropy remained the primary means of providing help to those in
need in the French and Iberian colonies.
A major step toward the expansion of state involvement in social welfare was
taken during the 19th century when the German Chancellor Count Otto von
Bismarck introduced the first social insurance programs for low-income workers.
The first of these programs was established in 1883 and provided income support
during times of sickness. The sickness insurance program was subsequently
enhanced by an occupational injuries and retirement program. In time, coverage
was extended and many more workers were included.
The German innovation in social insurance was widely emulated. The British
government introduced its first social insurance program in 1906, and in 1911,
Britain became the first country to provide unemployment benefits. In 1913, the
Swedish government introduced the first comprehensive social insurance retire
ment program for all workers irrespective of their income. In 1935, the United
States passed the Social Security Act, which created a universal old age retirement,
survivor, and invalidity scheme for all employees. Many other countries followed
the trend toward universal coverage, expanding provisions and covering many
more people under state welfare programs. A major development was the publica
tion of the Beveridge report in Britain in 1942. The report was prepared by a
government committee chaired by William Beveridge, a former civil servant and
director of the London School of Economics. The report recommended that the
government intervene extensively in social affairs and introduce a comprehensive
range of statutory health care, social insurance, housing, social assistance, educa
tion, and social work services. Most of the recommendations of the Beveridge
report were implemented at the end of World War II, and Britain was widely
regarded as the world's leading welfare state. However, there were similar devel
opments in other European countries where government intervention also ex
panded significantly. In the Scandinavian countries, government intervention was
even more extensive, and social expenditures reached unprecedented levels. Social
insurance programs were also introduced in some Latin American countries at
about the time that state welfare began to expand in the industrial nations. As
Mesa-Lago (1978) reports, some southern Latin American countries such as Chile
and Uruguay began to implement social security programs in the 1920s.
In the United States, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal also
involved a major expansion of state involvement in social welfare. Many govern
ment programs were introduced by Roosevelt's administration to respond to the
social problems caused by the Great Depression. The Social Security Act of 1935
was perhaps the most important innovation of the New Deal, and it has continued
to be the cornerstone of state welfare in America. The New Deal enshrined the idea
that the federal government should be responsible for promoting the welfare of the
country's citizens. This idea was reinforced by President Lyndon Johnson's Great
Society programs in the 1960s. President Johnson introduced extensive commu
nity-based antipoverty programs and instituted the first federal medical insurance
and medical assistance programs. His administration also increased the federal
government's involvement over other forms of social welfare such as housing and
urban development.
The expansion of government welfare in the Western industrial countries was
paralleled by the social programs introduced in the communist countries. In
compliance with Marxist ideology, the state was given the constitutional respon
sibility to promote the social welfare of its citizens when the Soviet Union was
founded at the end of World War I. Although the state also became the primary
provider of social welfare services, state welfare evolved differently from that of
the West. One major difference was that the workplace served as an important unit
through which welfare services were delivered. Large, collectivized industries
and agricultural enterprises provided a wide range of social services for their
workers. Another difference was that income maintenance programs were directly
linked to work productivity so that workers with a good employment record
received higher benefits when they retired. At the end of World War II, when Soviet
influence extended into Eastern Europe, similar approaches were adopted in these
countries.
In the developing countries, the evolution of social policy was characterized by

a distinctive urban bias. Although state welfare services were also established in
the rural areas, their coverage was limited. Initially, this was not thought to be a
problem. It was believed that the developing countries would undergo industriali
zation and that rural people would migrate to the cities to find regular employment.
The expansion of the social services in the cities would, therefore, eventually cover
the whole population. Today, it is recognized that the development of the social
services has been very uneven and that more effort is needed to reach the rural
population and the urban poor. Since the 1970s, social policy has increasingly
focused on these groups. In addition, much more attention has been given to the
task of formulating social policies that are appropriate to the economic, cultural,
and demographic circumstances of Third World countries.
Since the 1970s, there has been a major reversal in state welfare in different parts
of the world. Many government have retrenched their social programs. While the
Western industrial nations continue to allocate sizable resources to social welfare,
many have reduced social spending. The communist governments of the former
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe no longer exist, and the ability of these countries
to fund the social services adequately has been curtailed. Many developing coun
tries have fallen into debt, and with economic adversity, their commitment to
further expanding the social services has been impeded. Many social policy writers
now believe that the era of state welfare expansion has come to an end. This issue
will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
Industrial Countries and State Welfare
It has already been noted that government involvement in social welfare is most
extensive in the industrial countries. These countries include the Western European
nations, Canada and the United States, Japan, and Australia and New Zealand. The
governments of most of these countries allocate between 20% and 30% of GDP to
social programs. Some of them, including Belgium, Denmark, France, the Neth
erlands, and Sweden, spend more than 30% of GDP on these programs. Only a few
such as Australia, Greece, Japan, Spain, and the United States allocate less than
20% of GDP. However, none spends less than 16% of GDP on social welfare
(Glennerster, 1991; Pierson, 1991). Despite the differences in state social welfare
spending between these countries, it is generally agreed that all of them are
characterized by a high degree of government involvement in social welfare.
Because of the extensive involvement of their governments in social welfare,
the industrial countries are widely known as welfare states. Although the term
came into general use in Britain in the 1940s at the time of the publication of the
Beveridge report, Peter Flora and Arnold Heidenheimer (1981) reveal that it
actually originated in Germany in the 1930s where it was used by Chancellor von
Papen to denigrate the social programs of the preceding Weimar government. The
wohlfahrtstaat created by the Weimar government would, the chancellor argued,
soften the German nation and weaken its pride and potential military resurgence.
Howard Glennerster (1995) credits the Archbishop of Canterbury for giving the
term a positive connotation and for popularizing it in the early 1940s. The
archbishop endorsed the recommendations of the Beveridge report and implied
that the creation of a comprehensive system of statutory social services was
compatible with the highest ideals of a civilized society. Although originally
associated with the expansion of government programs in Britain, the term welfare
state was subsequently used in other countries, including the United States, to
connote extensive government involvement in social welfare.
The industrial welfare states were often compared with the Soviet Union and
the communist Eastern European nations. It is frequently argued that the welfare
states are merely capitalist countries that had modified the worst excesses of the
capitalist system by introducing social security and other social welfare services
(Ginsberg, 1979; Gough, 1979; Offe, 1984). Indeed, experts such as Τ. H. Marshall
(1971) have used the term welfare capitalism to describe these countries.
On the other hand, some advocates of state welfare believe that the industrial
welfare states are socialist in nature. Titmuss advocated extensive government
intervention in Britain, believing that state welfare represented socialist values.
Similarly, writers such as Walter Korpi (1983), Gosta Esping-Andersen (1985),
and John Stephens (1979) contend that the welfare state is the result of the struggles
of working-class people to create a just society based on socialist principles.
Some writers take the view that the welfare states are neither capitalist nor
socialist but a unique societal type based on a mixed, regulated economy and
characterized by a genuine commitment to promoting people's well-being. For
example, Robert Pinker (1979) argues that the industrial welfare states are not
simply a superficially modified form of capitalism or a development stage on the
road to socialism, but a distinctive type of society in which governments proac-
tively intervene to manage the economy and foster the welfare of all citizens. He
claims that the Western industrial welfare states are like the European mercantilist
nations of the 16th and 17th centuries, which used the power of government to
protect domestic industry and promote trade. For this reason, he describes the
Western industrial welfare states as neo-mercantilisl rather than capitalist.
However, it must be recognized that there are significant differences between
the various industrial countries in terms of the extent to which their governments
intervene in social welfare. Also relevant is the nature of this intervention. It has
already been shown that these governments allocate different amounts of resources
to social programs. Comparisons are often made between Sweden, which is a high
social spending nation, and the United States, which is a low social spending
country. In addition, the nature and type of social programs that are provided by
these countries vary considerably. For example, while the governments of the
industrial countries all provide health care services, there are significant differ-
ences in the way they manage, control, and deliver these services. Until recently,
Britain's National Health Service was highly centralized and funded through
general taxation. Other countries such as Canada have decentralized systems and
rely extensively on payroll taxes for funding. In the United States, the govern-
ment's health care system differs significantly from that of the other industrial
countries in that the majority of the population relies on commercial or other
private providers while state provisions are focused on the elderly and indigent.
In addition, unlike most other welfare states, many people in the United States
have no formal health protection or guaranteed access to health care.
Many social policy writers have claimed that the United States is a "reluctant
welfare state" when compared with European nations (Janssen, 1993). They
contend that the government of the United States allocates a smaller proportion of
the government's budget to social programs than European governments. They
also argue that it prefers programs that provide a minimum safety net to programs
that cover the whole population. The United States has limited government health
care provisions, and unlike European welfare states, it does not provide universal
income support for families with children. American social policy is also said to
be more fragmented and uncoordinated than the European and the government is
said to be less activist in its efforts to promote the welfare of its citizens. These
ideas are summarized by Harold Wilensky and Charles Lebeaux (1965): "The
United States is more reluctant than any other rich democratic country to make a
welfare effort appropriate to its affluence. Our support of national welfare pro
grams is halting; our administration of services for the less privileged is mean. We
move towards the welfare state but we do so with ill grace, carping and complain
ing all the way" (pp. xvi-xvii).
Writers such as Edwin Amenta and Theda Skocpol (1989) have examined
different explanations of the phenomenon of American welfare exceptionalism as
it is known. Some explanations have emphasized the individualistic culture of the
United States, which, it is claimed, is antithetical to government intervention in
social welfare. Others have stressed the size and diversity of the nation and its
tradition of political decentralization, which impedes the provision of universal
social services by a strong central government. Some writers such as Jill Quadagno
(1994) argue that racism is a major reason for America's reluctant welfare state.
Successive administrations failed to introduce comprehensive social programs
because of the racist attitudes of white people who believe that these programs
undermine white supremacy or otherwise serve the needs of ethnic minorities.
On the other hand, some experts dispute the idea that the United States is a
"welfare laggard." They point out that the country spends more on education than
many other industrial nations and that it is a world leader in environmental
protection. The country's social security system, they point out, is also extensive
(Wilensky, 1975). Skocpol (1992) has shown that the issue of American welfare
exceptionalism is a complicated one. She points out that the United States was
ahead of many European nations in the 19th century when it introduced govern
ment income support programs for veterans of the Civil War and for women with
children. Not only did the country pioneer income support programs, but its
commitment to mothers' pensions nearly resulted in the creation of the first
"maternal" welfare state in history. However, its leadership in the field was
surpassed in the early 20th century by many European countries, which introduced
comprehensive social insurance focused primarily on male workers. Instead of
pursuing its maternalist approach, the United States followed the European trend,
and income support programs for mothers were subsumed into the provisions of
the New Deal.
Other experts have argued that the issue of American welfare exceptionalism is
based on a European conception of state-owned and state-managed social pro
grams that does not fit the American situation. It is not that the government of the
United States fails to intervene in social affairs but rather that it does so in different
ways from the Europeans. Unlike many European countries, which have created
large, centralized social service bureaucracies, the United States has a decentral
ized and more pluralistic social welfare system.
It should also be noted that other industrial countries, such as Japan and
Australia, are similar to the United States in that they rely less extensively on
government to provide social services. It is not that these countries are welfare
laggards but that they are more pluralist than the European welfare states. There
are also differences between the European welfare states in the extent to which
their governments subsidize voluntary organizations to provide these services.
Britain has a far more centralized system of state provision than either Germany
or the Netherlands, where services are more decentralized and where the state
promotes a pluralistic approach to social policy. It is for this reason that experts
such as Richard Rose (1986) contend that the notion of welfare exceptionalism is
based on the fallacy that the government should be the only provider of welfare.
Japan, he argues, demonstrates that welfare pluralism can ensure high standards
of welfare for people without requiring extensive state involvement. As govern
ments find that they cannot maintain high levels of social spending, the need for
alternative forms of provision will be increasingly recognized. This argument is
compatible with the emphasis that is placed on welfare pluralism in social policy
circles today (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989; Hadley & Hatch, 1981; Johnson, 1987; Rein
& Rainwater, 1986).
State Welfare in the

Although it is now widely believed that communism is a thing of the past, it

should be recognized that communist regimes still exist in the modern world and,
more important, that the legacy of communism continues to influence social policy
in the former communist nations. As reformed socialist parties in these countries score
election victories, attempts will undoubtedly be made to maintain state responsibility
for social welfare even though economic pressures will impede this goal.
As Bob Deacon (1983) notes, social policy in the former communist countries
was based on the Marxian idea that under communism, the surplus value of labor
would not be expropriated by capitalists but instead be returned to workers to
ensure their social well-being. In the socialist period following the collapse of
capitalism, the state would actively promote the welfare of the workers. During
this period, social entitlement would be based on the worker's contribution, but
this would result in the final stage of communism, in a situation where need would
be the sole determinant for receiving benefit. During this final stage, the state
would wither away and its welfare functions would be transferred to communities
in which people cared unconditionally for each other.
The Soviet Union was the first country to adopt communism, but civil war and
serious economic problems impeded the adoption of Marx's and Lenin's ideas.
Stalin's tyrannical dictatorship and drive for industrialization also impeded the
creation of an extensive state welfare system. However, government health serv
ices, social security, and public housing were introduced during the Stalinist era,
and it was these programs that formed the basis for the subsequent expansion and
consolidation of the Soviet welfare system under Khruschev and Brezhnev (George
& Manning, 1980).
The Soviet social welfare system had several distinctive features. First, it was
entirely state run and funded largely from general taxation (Mishra, 1977). Volun
tary organizations and church welfare programs were suppressed, and although the
trade unions were actively involved in social welfare, their activities were closely
integrated with those of the state. Officially, the costs of the social services were
met from taxation or the profits of state enterprises. Workers were not required to
pay contributions into social security or health funds, and housing was heavily
subsidized. However, in practice, unofficial payments or "tips" for medical care
and access to preferential education and housing were widespread. Party elites,
military leaders, government functionaries, and trade union officials were also
favored by the government's social welfare system.
Another feature of the Soviet approach was the close integration of the social
services with the economy and their direct link to the workplace and to work
productivity. Economic development in the Soviet Union was based on centralized
planning, and social welfare policies and programs were closely integrated with
national planning. This integration reflected the Stalinist thrust for industrializa
tion and was manifested in linking social benefits to work productivity. Contrary
to the communist ideal of entitlement based exclusively on need, it was largely
based on years of service, seniority, and type of occupation. Workers in key
industries received the highest benefits, while those who were unable to work were
neglected. In addition, state enterprises provided housing, day care, health clinics,
and other services, and often these services were made available to the local
community in which the enterprise was located. Similarly, the collective farms had
their own social welfare systems, and farmers were not covered by the social
security system until 1965.
However, the quality of social services provision was not always of a high
standard. Despite the claims of Soviet writers such as M. S. Lantsev (1976) that
the country's social welfare system was superior to that of the industrial welfare
states, most commentators now recognize that government health care, education,
housing, and other forms of social welfare were not as effective as has been
claimed. Although the Soviet Union could boast universal social security coverage,
a free and comprehensive health care system, universal education, and extensive
public housing, Manning (1992) notes that there were many deficiencies in these
provisions. Health care facilities were inadequate, access to modern treatments
were limited, there were long waiting lists for public housing, classrooms were
often overcrowded, and retirement pensions were just above the official poverty
line. This was also true to varying degrees of the welfare systems of the Eastern
European communist countries, which had many similarities with that of the
Soviets. In some Eastern European countries such as Poland and Hungary, social
welfare programs were more centralized than in the Soviet Union. In others such
as Albania and Romania, the social services were poorly developed despite
propaganda claims to the contrary.
Although most experts now recognize that claims about the social programs of
the communist countries were excessive, there is ample evidence to show that
social programs contributed significantly to the welfare of the population. In

addition to the formal welfare system, food, clothing, and housing subsidies played
a major role in raising the standards of living of low-income families. The United
Nations (1993b) reports that in Hungary, consumer subsidies contributed signifi
cantly to the incomes of low-income families, maintaining them above the poverty
line. Child benefits also contributed significantly to household incomes.
However, the economy's ability to provide adequately for the needs of citizens
proved to be limited. Faced with increased demands for military expenditure, the
pressures of global economic competition, and growing indebtedness, the commu
nist economies were under enormous strain. Economic problems combined with
political liberalization at the end of the 1980s to cause the communist regimes to
collapse. They have been replaced by new center right or liberal parties and in
some cases by reformed socialist or communist parties.
The new regimes have inherited serious economic and social problems. With the
transition to free markets, unemployment has soared, crime and corruption is
rampant, and social neglect is widespread. In addition, many of the former
communist countries have been plunged into ethnic conflicts with disastrous social
consequences. The state welfare systems of these countries are now under serious
strain. In countries such as Poland, the social security system is almost bankrupt
(Ksiezopolski, 1996). As was noted in the last chapter, the high incidence of
unemployment has placed a major strain on social budgets as governments have
been compelled to support the unemployed. A variety of income support programs
have been introduced in most of the former communist countries, but in the absence
of sustained economic growth and employment creation, these programs simply
drain government revenues. Because of the increased need for income support, the
share of social security expenditure as a proportion of G D P has increased. In
Bulgaria, social security expenditure increased from 10% of GDP in 1988 to 2 1 . 1 %
in 1991. In Czechoslovakia, these expenditures increased from 11.7% to 15%, and
in Hungary they rose from 15% to 24% (United Nations, 1993b). Another problem
is that inflation in Russia and other former communist countries has eroded the
value of retirement pensions with the result that many elderly people are now in
poverty. As these countries continue to retrench their statutory programs in the
hope of creating market economies, social conditions may deteriorate further. The
problem is exacerbated by the retrenchments of consumer subsidies. In the one-
year period of 1990 to 1991, the share of subsidies as a percentage of GDP
decreased from 16% to 3.5% in Bulgaria, from 14% to 4% in Czechoslovakia, and
from 12% to 8% in Hungary (United Nations, 1993b).
In an attempt to cope with these problems, many former communist countries
have turned to the West for aid, and there is a belief that the introduction of
voluntary organizations and professional social work will produce effective reme
dies. However, the experience of the industrial countries reveals that pluralistic
systems of social welfare still require substantial government support. It is likely
that the electorates of the former communist countries will become increasingly
disillusioned with the failure of their new governments to address pressing social
needs. It is hoped that as economic conditions improve, the challenge of recon
structing a viable state welfare system will be met.
Third World and State Welfare
As was noted in the last chapter, the countries of the Third World have experi
enced different degrees of economic and social development since the end of World
War II, and they are now quite different from each other. However, while it is true
that these countries are becoming increasingly differentiated, they continue to
share many common features. There are commonalities in their statutory social
welfare systems that can be summarized in general terms.
First, the countries of the Third World share a common colonial legacy that has
to a significant extent shaped their government social provisions. Although this
legacy is strongest in African and Asian countries, it pervades social policy
throughout the Third World. In addition to the influence of colonialism, other
diffusionary tendency can also be detected. As Midgley (1984a) notes, the inter-
government agencies have played a major role in promoting the adoption of
particular social policy approaches to the developing countries. Both professional
social work and social security were exported to the Third World by these agencies
because they were viewed as modern methods of dealing with social problems.
Another factor is regional cooperation. It is not unusual to find marked similarities
in the approaches employed in the countries of Third World regions such as Latin
America where similar emphases have emerged.
These factors help to explain the broad commonalities that exist in state social
provisions in the major Third World regions. For example, social insurance forms
a major part of government social welfare effort in Latin America. In most
countries in the region, governments have made extensive use of social insurance
programs to provide income maintenance as well as health care and other social
services. The importance of social insurance in Latin America is unequaled in other
parts of the Third World.
In Africa, broad differences can be discerned between the former British and
French colonies. In the British territories, governments introduced provident funds
to provide income support to those in regular wage employment (Dixon, 1989).
Provident funds are compulsory savings programs that accumulate contributions
by workers, which are then paid out when the worker retires. These funds were
also created in many British territories in Asia and the Caribbean, and today many
countries that were formerly ruled by Britain have provident funds. On the other
hand, social insurance is the preferred approach in Francophone Africa (Mouton,
1975). The social security systems of the former French territories have close
similarities. Indeed, most were introduced within a few years of each other in the
early 1950s. Similarly, professional social work is better developed in the English
man French-speaking countries of Africa. Also, in the Francophone countries,
social work is linked to health care, while this is not the case in the Anglophone
nations (Midgley, 1981). Many Anglophone African countries also established
social assistance programs based on the English Poor Law model. However,
because of serious budget cuts, few of these programs are now operational.
Asian countries are quite diverse in their social welfare approaches. Relatively
few Asian countries have introduced social insurance programs. Those that were
previously under British rule rely on provident funds or social assistance, while
several others have no social security provisions at all. However, there is a trend
toward introducing social insurance in the region, and several East Asian countries
now have schemes of this kind. Social work is also expanding, and many higher-
income Asian countries have social assistance programs that cater to needy people.
Hong Kong is unique in having a noncontributory social allowance program for
elderly persons.
In addition to these and other differences, common social policy approaches can
also be identified. For example, most developing countries have invested exten
sively in formal education, and as was shown in the last chapter, school enrollments
have increased significantly. University education has also expanded, but often,
governments have invested disproportionately in the tertiary sector with the result
that primary education has suffered. Most Third World governments have also
emphasized hospital-based, curative medicine rather than community-based pri
mary health care. This approach has been heavily criticized, but curative ap
proaches continue to dominate government health care services in the developing
world (Abel-Smith & Leiserson, 1978). The neglect of primary education has also
been criticized because it is believed to be the most appropriate form of educational
investment for developing countries (Psacharopoulos, 1973).
Several social policy writers (Hardiman & Midgley, 1989; MacPherson, 1982;
MacPherson & Midgley, 1987) claim that the colonial legacy continues to have a
negative impact on social policy in the developing countries today. Of course,
several Third World countries were never colonized, but even here the influence
of European and North American approaches to social welfare can be readily
identified. Although the communist countries of the Third World were impervious
to these influences, they turned to the Soviet Union for inspiration, and as Deacon
(1983) reveals, there are distinct similarities between the social policies of these
nations. In China, the role of state enterprises in providing social welfare has been
even more extensive than in the Soviet Union (Chow, 1988; Dixon, 1981).
On the other hand, it should be recognized that Third World countries have
developed unique forms of social provision that were designed to meet their
particular social needs. One innovation was community development, which
sought to foster development at the local level by involving people in a variety of
economic, infrastructural, and social projects. The emphasis on activities of this
kind is compatible with the need for Third World countries to optimize social
expenditures and ensure that they contribute to the overriding need for economic
development. Another Third World innovation is the promotion of microenter
prises among low-income and special needs populations. Both innovations are
relevant to the industrial countries (Midgley, 1995).
State social welfare in many developing countries is also affected by demo
graphic factors. In many of these countries, the majority of the population lives in
rural areas and has limited access to modern government welfare programs. The
problem of coverage remains a major issue in Third World social policy. While
people's access to state education and public health care has improved in recent
years, coverage by other social services remains limited. This is particularly true
of income maintenance and social work services, which are often concentrated in
urban areas. As Midgley's (1984b) study of social security in the Third World
reveals, access to income maintenance remains highly unequal and exacerbates
existing patterns of inequality. The problem of access is exacerbated by economic
factors and by rapid rates of population growth, which place an additional burden
on the social services. However, the major problem is the incrementalist approach
to social welfare that many Third World governments have adopted. Instead of
formulating social policies appropriate to the needs of their countries, many Third
World governments have sought to expand incrementally the inappropriate social
provisions they inherited from the former colonial powers. There is an urgent need
for them to engage in appropriate policy development if they are to address the
pressing social needs of their citizens.
Fortunately, there are signs that the governments of many developing countries
are now seeking to implement social programs that are appropriate to their
economic and social realities. Significant progress has been made in primary health
care, the provision of clean drinking water supplies, and the eradication of certain
common diseases. These developments will be described in more detail in Chapter
6, which examines the impact of government intervention on social welfare.
Another feature of state welfare in the developing countries is that government
social provisions are seriously constrained by economic realities. A major problem
is the inability of the economy to support extensive state intervention in social
welfare, at least in ways that characterize statutory provision in the industrial
welfare states. Despite relatively good rates of economic growth since World War II,
many developing countries are still economically underdeveloped and cannot
generate the resources needed to fund extensive state social programs. In many
cases, modern statutory welfare services cater only to those in regular employment.
The impoverished rural majority as well as those who live in the growing urban
slums are often excluded.
The problem has been exacerbated as many developing countries, particularly
in Africa and Central and South America, have become deeply indebted. As was
shown in the last chapter, many of these countries are unable to meet their
obligations to international lenders, and many have been compelled to turn to the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for assistance. This has resulted
in the imposition of structural adjustment programs and in major reductions in
social spending. To cut government deficits and fund debt repayments, social
programs have been retrenched, staff have been terminated, and user fees have
been introduced. On the other hand, while social spending has been reduced,
military expenditures have increased in many developing countries. The United
Nations (1993b) reports that government spending on health and education in 64
developing countries fell on average from 19.7% to 18.4% between 1982 and 1987,
while military expenditures increased from 19.7% to 24.2%. In addition, govern
ment allocations for debt services rose from an average of 7% to 13% during the
1980s. In Africa, government expenditures were lower at the end of the 1980s than
at the beginning of the decade in 11 of 29 countries for which information was
available. The situation in the Ivory Coast was particularly acute since government
expenditures had declined by nearly a third during this period (United Nations,
1993b).
As can be imagined, the retrenchment in state social programs has had a negative
impact on people's welfare. Although attempts have been made to counteract the
worst effects of structural adjustment (Cornia, Jolly, & Stewart, 1987), there is
little doubt that deteriorating social conditions in many parts of Africa and Central
and South America are directly related to the imposition of these programs.
Although it is often claimed that they will ultimately benefit the poor, Kevin
Watkins (1995) is critical of these claims. Instead of benefiting the poor, he argues
that the costs of these programs have been passed on to the poor. As he points out,
cuts to health, education, and other key social programs are having a devastating
effect. As schools in many developing countries have been depleted of teaching
materials, and as the incomes and morale of teachers have deteriorated, it is
difficult to see how educational standards will improve. Similarly, as clinics have
been deprived of drugs, equipment, and medical personnel, it is unlikely that the
health services can continue to meet people's needs. Even if structural adjustment
programs eventually improve economic performance, the damage to social pro
grams and costs to human beings will take decades to rectify. Another review of
the impact of structural adjustment programs in Africa by Edwell Kaseke (1991)
reached similar conclusions. Kaseke claims that there is little evidence to show
that structural adjustment programs have brought either economic or social bene
fits to African nations.
Although some developing countries in East Asia and South America have
higher levels of economic development, and are better able to afford state welfare
services, the global trend toward retrenchment of state provision is also affecting
social policy in these countries. User fees are being introduced in many parts of
the developing world, and local people are increasingly having to raise funds to
support their own schools, clinics, and community activities. The privatization of
the Chilean social security system is being emulated in several Latin American
countries, and antiwelfarist attitudes are even appearing in communist China
where, as Joe Leung (1994) reveals, a residual conception of social welfare is being
adopted.
CHAPTER FIVE
THEORIES OF STATE WELFARE
The expansion of state welfare that has taken place during the past century has
attracted a good deal of interest from social scientists. Historians, sociologists, and
political scientists all have studied the trend toward increased government involve
ment in social welfare, and in addition, a specialized interdisciplinary field of
academic inquiry known as social policy has emerged to investigate different
aspects of government social welfare provision. As was noted in Chapter 1, social
policy now exists as a separate academic subject in many universities around the
world. It also exists within academic departments of political science, public
policy, and social work. Originally, social policy was primarily descriptive, seek
ing to examine the way the social services operated. It also undertook historical
and statistical studies to document the evolution and functioning of the social
services. However, over the years, social policy has become much more concep
tual, and today it has generated a substantial body of theory about state welfare.
Much social policy theory is concerned with government social provision.
Focusing on the state, social policy theory has been concerned with three major
topics. The first is the construction of representational conceptions of state welfare
provision. This body of theory has sought to translate real-world situations into
abstract constructs that are useful for purposes of classification, interpretation, and
understanding. The second topic for theory building in social policy is the expla
nation of the origins and functions of state welfare provision. This type of theory
asks why governments introduced and expanded their social programs and what
functions they serve. The third topic that has occupied social scientists in the field
of social policy is the formulation of normative theories. This type of theory is
concerned with establishing a conceptual framework for policy development and
identifying the criteria that can be used to evaluate government social programs.
89
As will be shown, normative theory draws extensively on ideological beliefs about

the best way of organizing society. All three types of theories will be discussed in
this chapter with reference to international trends.
REPRESENTATIONAL THEORIES
OF SOCIAL WELFARE
Representational theory has a useful function in social policy. By constructing

conceptual models of welfare phenomena, it helps social scientists to comprehend
complex realities. Using representational theory, they are able to classify, interpret,
and understand social welfare issues. Representational theory begins with con
cepts. These are standardized terms used to describe particular phenomena. Con
cepts are then organized into larger and more complex conceptual systems. These
systems are often known as models. Models are sometimes organized into typolo
gies, which are used to classify different types of welfare phenomena. As will be
shown, typologies have been widely employed in social policy to classify the
welfare systems of different countries or groups of countries.
Two types of representational theories in social welfare will be discussed in the
following section. The first deals with the construct of the welfare state that is
widely used but is highly problematic. The second type of representational theory
uses models of social welfare to create typologies or taxonomies of state welfare.
These typologies help social scientists to understand the wide variations in social
welfare provisions that exist in the modern world.
The Welfare State Construct
The term welfare state is now widely used in social policy research to connote
a country in which the government provides extensive social services to its
citizens. The construct is, of course, an ideal-type. Ideal-types are widely used in
the social sciences to describe particular social phenomena. They create a mental
image of a particular social phenomenon against which real-world examples can
be compared.
As was noted in Chapter 4, the term welfare state came into popular use in
Britain in the 1940s after the publication of the Beveridge report. The idea that the
welfare state embodied high ideals and desirable social values was widely accepted
at the time. After World War II, as many governments expanded their social
services, many believed that the welfare state not only represented high ideals but
that it was an inevitable historical step in the development of modern society.
Industrialization, they believed, compelled governments to create extensive social
programs.
Several writers have attempted to categorize the welfare state in ideological
terms. Some argue that the creation of the Western welfare state represents a
historical phase in the development of socialism that differs from the revolutionary
Theories of State Welfare 1Q|
socialism of Marxism. The welfare state is a democratic socialist project brought

about by the struggles of working-class people to create a just society. As was noted
in the last chapter, Richard Titmuss viewed the social services as a socialist
enterprise. Similarly, writers such as Walter Korpi (1983), GostaEsping-Andersen
(1985), and John Stephens (1979) believe that Western welfare states such as
Sweden have significantly modified the capitalist system and are an expression of
socialist aspirations. Examining developments in Sweden, Stephens concludes that
the country demonstrates that a parliamentary transition to socialism is possible.
As will be shown later in this chapter, Esping-Andersen (1990) claims that the
Swedish welfare state had significantly decommodified labor.
On the other hand, Marxist writers argue that the welfare state is little more than
an attempt to ameliorate the worse excesses of capitalism (Ginsberg, 1979; Gough,
1979; Offe, 1984). They insist that the welfare state is not even remotely socialist
in character. Norman Ginsberg (1992) argues that even in Sweden where the
welfare state is probably most advanced, "the economy is owned and controlled
by private interests to an astonishing extent" (p. 198). It is for this reason that
Marxist and other left-wing critics frequently invoke Τ. H. Marshall's (1971)
phrase "welfare capitalism" to describe state social intervention in the Western
industrial nations.
Some writers take a third position, contending that the welfare state is a unique
social formation. They claim that it is neither socialist nor capitalist. As was noted
in the last chapter, writers such as Robert Pinker (1979) believe that the welfare
state is a distinctive social formation based on neo-mercantilist principles. This
idea that the welfare state is a unique social formation is also given expression in
the notion of the welfare consensus or the social democratic compromise. For some
writers, the welfare state represents a historic accommodation between capitalism
and socialism. The long-term viability of this compromise will be discussed further
in Chapter 7.
Social scientists also disagree about the normative usefulness of the welfare state
construct. While many believe that it connotes a desirable degree of state involve-
ment, comprehensiveness in coverage, and universality of entitlement, others
disagree with this normative interpretation of the welfare state ideal. For example,
Titmuss (1968) criticizes the term because, he claims, it fostered complacency.
While many readily accepted that the welfare state had solved society's social
problems, he contends that many people were still inadequately served, that
means-tested social programs that stigmatized recipients were still widely used,
and that social programs had not significantly reduced social inequality. Writers
on the political right also use the term to criticize government involvement in social
welfare. They claim that the welfare state has harmed the economy and diminished
personal responsibility.
On the international level, it is clear that there are major differences between
the Western welfare states. As more international research was undertaken, it was
recognized that countries such as Sweden had more extensive social provisions
than Britain, which was then believed to be the ideal-type welfare state. In addition,
Sweden had adopted effective labor market policies that were designed to promote
full employment. Although full employment was also supposed to be a prime
commitment of the British welfare state, it became secondary to the goal of
providing comprehensive social services. The United States also presented a
problem. There was disagreement about whether the United States was a welfare
state. As was shown in the last chapter, many experts recognized that the United
States spends less on social programs and has a less centralized and comprehensive
system of provision than many European countries. However, writers such as
Harold Wilensky and Charles Lebeaux (1965) were optimistic that the United States
was evolving into a full-fledged welfare state. While the United States differed
significantly from the European ideal-type welfare state, they contend that it was
gradually expanding its social programs, introducing more universalistic provi
sion, and that it would in time compare favorably with its European counterpart.
However, few experts today believe that the United States has moved closer
toward the European welfare state model. Indeed, many argue that the American
social welfare system has been contracted over the past 15 years and that it is now
even less of a welfare state than before (Abramovitz, 1992; Block, Cloward,
Ehrenreich, & Piven, 1987; Davey, 1995). As will be shown in Chapter 7, there
have been similar retrenchments in other parts of the world.
Nevertheless, the welfare state construct continues to be widely used in social
policy circles. Although it has never been properly defined, books and articles that
use the term appear regularly. The term has also been redefined. Some writers now
believe that the welfare state construct should not only be employed to connote
government social services but that other welfare providers such as nonprofit and
commercial organizations should also be included. These writers advocate a
pluralistic conception of the welfare state (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989; Hadley &
Hatch, 1981; Johnson, 1987; Rein & Rainwater, 1986; Rose, 1986). However,
some suggest that the term welfare society is a more appropriate designation.
Another problem is that the term has acquired a negative connotation. For
example, in the United States, Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt
Gingrich frequently uses the term derogatively to criticize the American govern
ment's social programs, and particularly its Aid to Families With Dependent
Children (AFDC) program for low-income single-parent families. As a result of
his relentless attacks, many Americans now believe that the United States is a
welfare state that spends vast sums of money on indolent poor people who do not
work or fulfill their obligations to society.
In view of these problems, it is not clear why the welfare state construct
continues to be used in social policy circles. As noted before, the term has never
been rigorously defined. Nor has it been standardized, and it continues to mean
different things to different writers. In addition, its normative application by
persons of quite different ideological dispositions further undermines its useful
ness. As these difficulties suggest, there are good reasons for advocating that it be
abandoned. However, the term remains popular, and it is likely that it will continue
to be used while governments continue to allocate sizable proportions of their
budgets to social programs.
ogies of State Welfare
Typologies are widely used in the social sciences to classify complex phenom
ena. When faced with a large number of cases, social scientists often group these
Theories of State Welfare 93
cases into categories or types. Each category or type shares common features.
Sometimes, only two types are identified. In other instances, three or more types
may be used. Together, the different categories or types form a typology. Typolo
gies are also known as taxonomies. By using typologies, social scientists are able
to comprehend and manage complex sets of cases more effectively.
The first and perhaps most important typology of state social welfare provision
was formulated by Wilensky and Lebeaux (1965). In their study of the impact of
industrialization on the development of government social programs in the United
States, Wilensky and Lebeaux identify two dominant conceptions of social wel
fare. The first, which they call the residual conception, "holds that social welfare
institutions should come into play only when the normal structures of supply, the
family and the market break down" (p. 138). The second, which they call the
institutional conception, "sees welfare services as the normal first line function of
industrial society" (p. 138). While the former conception provides limited, means-
tested services to particular groups of needy people, the latter institutionalizes
social welfare and caters to the population as a whole. Wilensky and Lebeaux argue
that American society was gradually evolving from a residual to an institutional
conception. With increased industrialization, the previously limited role of state
social welfare provisions would be replaced by a more comprehensive system of
universal services.
Although Wilensky and Lebeaux's typology was concerned with social welfare
in the United States, Titmuss (1968, 1974) used it to classify different countries.
Titmuss had previously constructed a model that differentiated between universal
and selective provisions. His universal-selective model was very similar to Wilensky
and Lebeaux's approach, but in his later writing, Titmuss preferred to use the
residual-institutional typology. Comparing Britain with the United States, Titmuss
believed that the United States favored a residual approach and Britain had adopted
an institutional approach. He thought that the Scandinavian countries had also
adopted an institutional approach.
Titmuss also believed that some countries such as Germany and the Soviet Union
did not fit the institutional-residual model. In these countries, people's work record
was used as a criterion for receiving state welfare services. Social welfare provi
sions such as health care, housing, and income support were often tied to employ
ment performance. The longer workers were in employment, the more they
received in benefits. On the other hand, in countries that had adopted the institu
tional model, work performance was not taken into account and people received
benefits based on their needs and as a basis of right. To accommodate countries
where work performance was stressed, Titmuss added a third type to the residual-
institutional model, which he called the "industrial achievement-performance
model." In countries that were characterized by this model, social welfare is
regarded as an adjunct to the economy and "social needs are met on the basis of
merit, work-performance and productivity" (Titmuss, 1974, p. 31).
Since the publication of Titmuss's three-part typology, many other models of
state social welfare have appeared. Some consist of only two types, and others have
three or four. An example of the former is the model constructed by Ramesh Mishra
(1984), a Canadian social scientist who has made extensive use of social theory to
study state welfare systems. Mishra believes that the industrial countries can be
divided into differentiated welfare states and integrated welfare states. Disagree
ing with Titmuss, who claimed that Britain's welfare system differed significantly
from that of the United States, Mishra classifies both countries as differentiated
welfare states. He argues that both are dominated by a free market economy and
both have pluralist political systems in which sectional interest groups compete
with each other in a free-for-all struggle to influence political decision making.
Mishra believes that the welfare states of both countries separate the economy from
social welfare. In the differentiated welfare state, state social welfare is a relatively
autonomous domain.
On the other hand, Mishra notes that most European countries are dominated by
a political and economic system known as corporatism. In corporate systems, the
government enters into a compact with the business community and the trade
unions. All three work together to regulate the economy and integrate welfare
provisions into a comprehensive economic and social policy. Welfare policy is thus
based on class cooperation and consensus rather than competition and conflict.
Social welfare is not separated from the economy but is closely harmonized with
economic policy. It is the integration of social welfare and the economy that is the
most distinctive feature of the integrated welfare state. Mishra claims that many
European countries, such as Austria and Sweden, are integrated welfare states.
An example of a threefold model of state social welfare comes from two
American social scientists, Norman Furniss and Timothy Tilton (1977). Their
model includes the positive state, the social security state, and the social welfare
state. The positive state, as exemplified by the United States, functions to ensure
economic stability and protect the interests of property holders. The social security
state, as exemplified by Britain, functions to guarantee minimum standards of
welfare for its citizens. Finally, the social welfare state, as exemplified by Sweden,
transcends a concern with minimum standards and functions to promote the
well-being of all by not only providing a comprehensive array of social services
but by fostering equality and participation in political affairs.
One of the most frequently cited typologies of state welfare has been formulated
by the Swedish writer Gosta Esping-Andersen (1990). Esping-Andersen makes
use of a three-part typology in which the concept of decommodification plays a
vital role. He points out that capitalism turns labor into a commodity. Like any
other commodity, labor has a market value and can be bought and sold. To survive,
workers have to sell their labor on the market, and often their only source of income
is derived from the sale of their labor.
However, the introduction of unemployment insurance, state retirement pen
sions, and other government social programs has reduced the extent to which labor
is a commodity. Esping-Andersen believes that the decommodification of labor is
a useful criterion for determining the extent to which governments intervene to
meet the social needs of their citizens. In some countries, such as Sweden, people
are no longer dependent on selling their labor to survive. Decommodification has
been achieved through social programs that provide alternative sources of income.
On the other hand, in countries such as the United States, labor is still widely
treated as a commodity and most people depend on labor income to meet their
needs.
Using labor decommodification as the primary criterion for classifying state
welfare provisions, Esping-Andersen identifies three types of "welfare regimes":
the liberal welfare state, the conservative-corporatist welfare state, and the social
democratic welfare state. In the liberal welfare state, there is little labor decom
modification and it is widely accepted that social welfare should not undermine
the work ethic. For this reason, social services are limited, means-tested, and
stigmatizing. State welfare thus supports the capitalist, free market system. Exam
ples of this type of welfare state include Britain, Australia, and the United States.
The second category, the conservative-corporatist welfare state, has a moderate
degree of labor decommodification and accepts the notion of social welfare as a
right of citizenship. However, these rights exist within traditional authority struc
tures and negotiated corporatist arrangements. These welfare states are also domi
nated by traditional religious and cultural beliefs about the importance of the
family and traditional gender relationships. The churches and voluntary organiza
tions play an important role in social welfare, and these societies subscribe to the
principle of subsidiarity in which responsibility for social welfare is as far as
possible devolved to the churches and voluntary organizations. The third type, the
social democratic welfare state, is characterized by a high degree of labor decom
modification. Here, social welfare programs are highly institutionalized and citi
zens are emancipated from a dependence on the labor market. In these societies,
the government is not a last resort to which people turn for help but instead is the
primary mechanism by which their welfare is secured. Examples are the Scandi
navian countries and Sweden in particular.
Limitations of Typologies of State Welfare
Many other examples of social welfare typologies can be given. Indeed, the few
that have been mentioned here are only a sample of the many that have appeared
since the publication of Wilensky and Lebeaux's seminal work in 1965. Although
they have obvious heuristic value in that they help categorize the many different
approaches to social welfare that have been adopted by governments around the
world, they raise complex problems. These problems reveal that the use of
typologies in international social welfare is not a straightforward matter.
The first and perhaps most obvious problem is that the typologies described here
are not fully inclusive of the world's nation states. It is clear that many countries
are not included in the models. With the exception of Titmuss, who included the
former Soviet Union in the industrial achievement-performance model, the com
munist countries were excluded. Similarly, as Stewart MacPherson and James
Midgley (1987) point out, the models do not include the developing countries or
the Third World.
Another problem is that it is difficult to choose between the different typologies.
So many different typologies have been constructed that it is hard to decide which
one most accurately captures the different features of state welfare programs
around the world. This problem is compounded by the fact that different writers
have used different criteria to distinguish between different countries. Countries
are classified differently depending on which typology is used. While Titmuss
classified Britain into a different category from the United States, Mishra grouped
the two together and contrasted them with Sweden, Austria, and other countries
where corporatism predominates. The fact that the typologies are now in compe
tition with each other does not help simplify complex phenomena but tends rather
to confuse and complicate matters. It is questionable whether any of the typologies
will gain widespread acceptance and serve to standardize the way state welfare
systems are classified.
A related problem is the use of the typologies for normative purposes. Although
they are intended to foster analytical clarity, they often express personal ideologi
cal preferences. For example, the United States is often represented negatively in
the models. Titmuss, Furniss and Tilton, and Esping-Andersen have all constructed
typologies in which the United States is portrayed in unfavorable terms. This
practice has been condemned by Pinker (1979), who is particularly critical of
Titmuss for organizing the evidence in ways that ensured the moral superiority of
the institutional model. Pinker accuses Titmuss of blatantly using ideological
assumptions to classify welfare systems in ways that endorse his own moral
preferences. This practice weakens the scientific value of his typology. A similar
criticism can be made of many other writers who have constructed models of social
welfare. Despite claiming to be analytical, their own moral preferences often
override scientific objectivity.
Of course, the typologies can legitimately be used for normative purposes to
distinguish between countries that fit preconceived ideological categories and
those that do not. However, it is not clear that they are effectively used in this way.
Indeed, there is still much confusion about which models represent ideal-type
welfare states. While Mishra points out that both his differentiated and integrated
types are welfare states, other writers exclude some categories from the welfare
state ideal. On the other hand, Furniss and Tilton point out that only the social
security and social welfare states are true welfare states; the positive state is not a
welfare state. Other writers are not so clear, and in many cases, it is not obvious
that their models fit the ideal-type welfare state construct. Indeed, as was shown
previously, there has been little discussion of what the welfare state as an ideal-type
comprises. Can a residualist regime legitimately be called a welfare state or is the
institutional type closer to what is meant by a welfare state? Despite the formula
tion of numerous typologies of state social welfare, this issue has not been
adequately addressed in the literature.
As was noted earlier, some writers have sought to examine the applicability of
the typologies to non-Western nations. In his analysis of social policy in the
communist countries, Bob Deacon (1983) notes that many of these societies appear
to fall within the institutional model. However, a closer examination reveals that
state social welfare was not based on need but was instead used to exercise social
control, to promote demographic or economic goals, and to serve the interests of
ruling elites. Social policy in the communist nations did not fit the institutional
model, which Deacon believes is fundamentally socialist in character.
Similarly, in his discussion of the relevance of the typologies to the developing
countries, Midgley (1985) notes that while both the residual and institutional
models can be identified in the Third World, they do not accurately describe current
realities. Most developing countries inherited a residual approach from the former
colonial powers, but subsequently made a commitment to expand their social
services. This trend can best be encapsulated within what Midgley describes as the
incremental model. In terms of this model, governments seek to enhance state
welfare services through gradually extending existing provisions and increasing
resources. However, he believes that the incremental model does not meet the
needs of developing countries. Instead, approaches that are appropriate to the needs
and circumstances of these countries are needed.
THEORIES OF THE ORIGINS A N D

F U N C T I O N S O F STATE WELFARE
A second major field of theoretical activity in social policy is concerned with

explaining the reasons governments introduced and expanded statutory social
programs during the past century. It is also concerned with investigating the social
functions of these programs. Social policy research has now generated a rich body
of explanatory theory, and many different accounts of the origins and functions of
state welfare have emerged.
As will be shown in the following section, explanatory theories in social policy
emphasize quite different factors. Consequently, a variety of competing explana
tions of the genesis and purposes of government social provisions are now
available. This is unfortunate because it means that social science research has not
yet been able to discover the real reasons for the introduction and expansion of
state social welfare. However, while this means that readers are forced to choose
between competing theories and to accept the most plausible explanations, social
scientists working in the field have generated some very interesting ideas about
the reasons governments introduced and rapidly expanded statutory social provi
sions on such a large scale over the past century.
Although there are many different theories to choose from, they share common
features. Many are deterministic, contending that social programs did not evolve
haphazardly or because of the whim of political leaders, but rather because of
causational forces located in wider social processes. As such, they reflect the
powerful influence of positivism in Western social science where the search for
causes is a primary activity. However, as John Carrier and Ian Kendall (1973) note,
some explanations of the origins of state welfare are less deterministic in nature.
For example, several historians argue that the creation of the British welfare state
was a rational, practical response to the social problems facing the country.
Nevertheless, as they point out, most theories of the origins and functions of state
welfare are inspired by a positivist concern with causes.
Another common feature of these theories is that they usually reflect a sense of
historical inevitability. Most explain the emergence of statutory provisions in terms
of an evolutionary, historical process, and most stress the role of social and political
forces in directing the process in predetermined ways. This is particularly true of
functionalist and Marxist theories. In some cases, their determinism is located in
wider explanations of social changes such as industrialization. In others, the role
of political factors is emphasized. In fact, most theories involve political factors.
While they may identify quite different causational influences, they suggest that
these influences do not magically create state social programs but work through
political processes to produce these programs. However, while these forces may
act through political decisions, they exert an influence that transcends the political
process.
There are differences also in the extent to which these theories are generalizable.
As was noted earlier, no single theory is currently accepted as providing a
satisfactory explanation of the reasons for the introduction and expansion of state
welfare. In addition, none of the theories applies to a wide range of countries.
While some appear to be quite plausible in explaining the origins and functions of
state welfare in some countries, attempts to apply them to others often flounder.
This is particularly true of attempts to apply these theories to the former communist
countries and the nations of the Third World (MacPherson & Midgley, 1987).
Social Conscience and

the Humanitarian Impulse
Social conscience theorists argue that governments introduced and expanded

social programs during the past century because the modern state embodies the
deeply held humanitarian values of its citizens. Proponents of this theory believe
that human beings in all societies have historically felt a strong need to be altruistic.
Their humanitarianism is a function of their social nature. They not only instinc
tively care for their young but for their relatives, friends, and neighbors. Altruism,
they believe, is a basic characteristic of being human.
Proponents of social conscience theory argue that people's humanitarian im
pulses were in the past channeled through family obligations, community-based
cultural norms of reciprocity, and institutionalized charity. They use historical
evidence to show that humanitarianism has been a feature of social life for
thousands of years. The ancient Jews, Greeks, Romans, early Christians, and others
were deeply humanitarian and cared for those in need (Axinn & Levin, 1982;
Dolgoff & Feldstein, 1980). Contemporary anthropological evidence is also pro
duced to show that many traditional communities in Africa, Asia, and Central and
South America regularly engage in helping activities.
Social conscience theorists contend that while people today still have strong
humanitarian feelings, they use the state to give expression to these feelings
(Baker, 1979). Because of the scale and complexity of social problems as well as
the need for highly organized technical response, it is recognized that individual
charity cannot solve society's pressing social problems. For this reason, citizens
pay their taxes and rely on government to ensure that the needy are helped. Today,
government social welfare programs represent the altruistic concerns of citizens.
Some writers such as William Robson (1976) have slightly modified the argu
ment to suggest that governments assumed responsibility for social welfare during
the past century because many middle-class people were indignant about the
unsatisfactory conditions in which the poor lived. By pressuring governments to
intervene, they gave expression to their social conscience. Charles Prigmore and
Charles Atherton (1979) also offer a somewhat different version of the social
conscience theory by arguing that urbanization, individualism, and industrializa
tion have undermined people's altruistic feelings. Because social needs must be
met, the state is compelled to step in and assume responsibility, but it does so on
behalf of its citizens and still represents their collective concern for the less
privileged in society. Another version of the theory comes from Indian writers such
as A. M. Muzumdar (1964), who have argued that the Indian government's
commitment to social welfare is inspired by the humanitarian passion of Mahatma
Gandhi, who encouraged the country's political leaders to use the resources of the
state to help those in need. In his influential book The Gift Relationship, Titmuss
(1971) also gives expression to social conscience ideas. Although Titmuss does
not explore the role of altruism as a cause of the genesis of social policy, his belief
that statutory social welfare should institutionalize altruistic sentiments provides
a powerful normative basis for state intervention.
A major problem with social conscience theory is that little empirical evidence
is used to support its claims. Apart from making references to the ancient Greeks,
Jews, or early Christians, proponents of the theory argue their case as if it were
self-evident that governments act on behalf of their citizens and represent their
collective humanitarian concerns. Unfortunately, there is a good deal of empirical
evidence to show that governments do not always act benevolently or give
expression to humanitarian impulses. Although humanitarian attitudes can be
found in the beliefs of the ancient civilizations, these civilizations were often
governed by brutal rulers, slavery was institutionalized, wars were savage, and
punishments were cruel. Many contemporary examples of totalitarian govern-
ments that have oppressed their citizens and increased levels of illfare can also be
given. In addition, there is historical evidence to show that the introduction of state
welfare programs was not universally supported by political leaders. Despite the
popularity of the Beveridge proposals in Britain at the end of World War II,
political opposition to their implementation was intense. Joan Higgins (1981)
reports that fierce ideological battles were also fought during the creation of the
British national health service. This point undermines the idea that politicians serve
as a conduit for the humanitarianism of their constituents. Similar ideological
battles are being waged over state welfare programs today. In addition, the idea
that ordinary people regard the state as the mechanism by which their altruistic
feelings are given expression is questionable particularly in the light of opinion
surveys that reveal significant disenchantment with the provision of income
support to the poor (Harris & Seldon, 1987; Taylor-Gooby, 1991).
Citizenship Theory
Reference was made earlier in this chapter to the work of Τ. H. Marshall (1950).
He suggests that state welfare is the culmination of the evolution of citizenship
rights. Marshall believes that Western democratic societies evolved slowly from a
situation where only a small minority enjoyed civil, political, and social rights. In
earlier times, the monarch and aristocrats held political and economic power, and
rights were limited to the few. However, as society evolved, rights were extended.
During the 18th century, as civil rights were applied to larger groups of people, the
idea of citizenship was enlarged. In the 19th century, political rights were also
extended to permit men and later women to participate in political affairs. This
development further enhanced the notion of citizenship. However, the move

toward full citizenship required that people also had social rights. Marshall
argues that people cannot be regarded as full and equal members of society if
they live in poverty, are badly housed, experience poor health, and are inadequately
educated. The fulfillment of citizenship thus requires the state to intervene to
ensure that their basic needs are met, that their problems are addressed, and
that they have opportunities for advancement. In the same way that the state
guarantees civil and political rights, it now extends social programs to establish
social rights for all.
Marshall's notion of citizenship underlies his conception of the ideal-typical
welfare state. The welfare state is a society in which all three rights are guaranteed
and in which people have opportunities to realize their full potential. The granting
of social rights, he argues, is essential for the proper enjoyment of civil and
political rights. Equality before the law has no meaning if some people are poorly
educated or deprived of opportunity. The granting of social rights also enhances
equality in society. This does not mean that all people will be equal in terms of
their incomes or material possessions. However, it does mean that they will be
equal in terms of basic rights. The bonds they form will be different from those
that existed in traditional societies. Instead of loyalties based on family or clan
association, they will be full and equal members of a "societal community" and
enjoy basic rights under law.
Marshall's ideas have exerted a powerful influence on social policy. Although
he does not explain in any detail how social rights were extended, or who was
responsible for extending them, his representational approach has helped to frame
debates about the welfare state. Its normative contribution has been equally
important. It suggests that all citizens have the right to be educated, properly
housed, provided with health care, and cared for through state social services. In
recent times, Marshall's ideas have been widely debated as critics of government
social programs have claimed that the provision of services on an unconditional
basis has resulted in widespread abuse. Citizenship, they argue, is not uncondi
tional but requires that people fulfill their duties and responsibilities (Mead, 1986;
Roche, 1992). This issue has become prominent in debates about the payment of
income support to needy people in the industrial nations.
Functionalism, Industrialization, and Welfare
Functionalism is an approach in the social sciences that is concerned with

analyzing the functions of social institutions. By discovering these functions, it is
possible to explain their origins and purposes. Functionalists believe that social
welfare institutions serve some important purpose in society. They also believe
that governments introduce these programs because they are compelled to do so
by the social forces giving expression to these functions. Thesefunctional impera
tives thus transcend political and ideological preferences.
There is, therefore, an inevitability about the creation of government social
welfare provisions. There is also a universality about the introduction of these
Theories of Stote Welfare""
programs in the sense that governments of all societies with similar characteristics
will introduce similar social programs. This aspect of functionalist theory is known
as the convergence hypothesis. This hypothesis states that social welfare provision
in countries of similar levels of economic development will be similar irrespective
of their ideological and cultural characteristics.
Pinker (1971) and Mishra (1977) have shown that the great 19th-century French
sociologist Emile Durkheim used a functionalist approach to explain the introduc
tion of government social welfare programs. Durkheim believed that modern
societies were undergoing rapid social change as a result of industrialization and
that traditional forms of social organization were being undermined. As individu
alism and competition increased, anomie and social disorganization became more
widespread. By reducing the excesses of social need and enhancing social justice,
governments promoted greater social solidarity and were able to counter the forces
of social disintegration. Social welfare institutions thus have a major social
function. Although Durkheim did not advocate extensive state control over the
economy and social affairs, he believed that government social welfare had a
positive role to play in society. Durkheim's ideas had a powerful influence on later
social policy writers such as Titmuss, who also stressed the role of state social
programs in enhancing social solidarity.
A different version of this theory has been formulated by writers such as
Wilensky and Lebeaux (1965) and Gaston Rimlinger (1971). Their work draws on
the ideas of sociologists who emphasized the importance of industrialization in
shaping social institutions, values, and behavior. For example, Clark Kerr and his
colleagues (Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison, & Myers, 1960) argue that modern societies
have changed dramatically because of industrialization. They claim that these
changes are taking place in all countries experiencing industrialization. Giving
expression to convergence ideas, they believe that similar institutions, values, and
behaviors are emerging in countries of very different ideological and cultural
characteristics. The trend toward convergence was emphasized by Daniel Bell
(1960), who contends that ideological conflict in the modern world is disappearing.
This idea has recently been restated by the American writer Francis Fukuyama
(1992).
Welfare industrialization theory contends that industrialization causes people to
migrate from rural communities to urban centers where they find wage employ
ment in the expanding industrial economy. However, when they move to the cities
they usually live in urban slums where poverty, crime, and other social problems
are endemic. In addition, they struggle to adapt to the new competitive urban
environment and often feel alienated and bewildered. To make matters worse, they
not only abandon their families and kin and thus create new social needs in the
rural areas, but they forsake the traditional social supports and systems of care
provided by their family members and traditional communities.
During the process of industrialization, social needs and problems increase
dramatically and governments are compelled to intervene by introducing new
social programs. For example, modern social security programs emerge to replace
traditional forms of social care. Social work evolves because professional help is
needed to treat the social problems associated with dislocation. Although these
ideas were originally formulated with reference to the industrial nations, they have
been widely used to explain the emergence of state welfare in the developing
nations. For example, Christine Cockburn (1980) uses the theory to explain the
introduction of social security in the Third World, and William Clifford (1966)
applies it to account for the adoption of social work in Africa. Reiterating the
convergence hypothesis, proponents of welfare industrialization theory also con
tend that governments in all societies undergoing industrialization will create
similar social programs. They believe that ideological factors are not very impor
tant because the changes brought about by industrialization compel governments
to introduce social programs whether they like it or not.
Empirical support for welfare industrialization theory has been provided by
Wilensky and Lebeaux (1965), who, as noted earlier, believe that industrialization
will gradually cause the United States to become more like the European welfare
states. In a subsequent study, Wilensky (1975) compared government social
expenditures in 64 countries and concluded that industrialization was the single
most important determinant of government social welfare effort. Rimlinger's
(1971) detailed research into the historical development of social policy in Europe
and North America also confirms the theory although he pays much more attention
to political forces, noting that while industrialization fosters state intervention,
political pressure from workers plays a major role in facilitating a government
response. He also concludes that different approaches to social policy emerge in
different countries with different cultural and political traditions. In countries such
as Germany where industrialization was led by dynastic leaders, social policy is
paternalistic in character. In countries such as the United States where the middle
classes promoted industrialization, social policy is more individualistic. In Russia,
where industrialization was led by Communist Party leaders, government control
of social welfare is extensive.
Although welfare industrialization theory was previously very popular, it is not
as frequently mentioned as before. Despite Wilensky's (1975) claim that interna
tional data support the theory, there is historical and empirical evidence to question
its validity. For example, governments in European countries such as Britain and
Germany introduced social programs long after industrialization was well ad
vanced. Similarly, countries such as New Zealand introduced social programs at
the end of the 19th century when the country was predominantly rural and
agricultural. The convergence hypothesis has also been questioned by writers who
have compared developments in various countries where patterns of social welfare
provision are quite different. Many believe that ideological factors have played a
more important role than industrialization in the evolution of social policy in the
United States. In an interesting study, Ann Orloff and Theda Skocpol (1984)
investigated the evidence by examining welfare and industrialization in Britain
and Massachusetts at the turn of the century. Although both regions had similar
levels of industrialization, state welfare programs in Britain were much more
advanced than in Massachusetts. Another empirical study into this question was
undertaken by Midgley (1988a), who looked at industrialization and welfare in
East Asia. He found that there is no clear pattern in the way state welfare provision
emerged in the "four little tigers" of East Asia (Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and
Taiwan). Also, there is little evidence to show that the creation of government
social programs was directly linked to industrialization.
Interest Groups and State Welfare
Some theories place great emphasis on the role of political activities, interest
groups, and the state itself in the historical development of social policy. These
theories are often formulated by political scientists and stress the way different
political actors contributed to the emergence and expansion of government social
provisions in Western democratic societies.
At the simplest level, these theories attribute the introduction of state welfare
provision to the pressures exerted on political leaders by interest groups. Propo
nents of these theories argue that government social provisions are usually created
on an incremental basis and usually in response to particular pressures. However,
the way these groups achieve their goals varies considerably. In some cases,
organized interest groups lobby political leaders to introduce social programs for
themselves or their supporters. In other cases, they act on behalf of others.
Sometimes, pressures are exerted indirectly and the decision to create a social
program is designed to diffuse or subvert the activities of interest groups. However,
proponents of this theory stress that it is the exercise of political pressure to serve
the interests of some group or another that lies behind the decision to introduce
state welfare programs.
Although Rimlinger (1971) concludes that the wider forces of industrialization
facilitated the creation of state social programs, he recognizes the importance of
interest groups in the process. He notes that Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's
decision to establish the first modern social security system in Germany was
largely an attempt to outmaneuver the Social Democratic Party and weaken its
appeal to industrial workers. Although social security was ostensibly introduced
to help low-income workers, it was in fact designed to serve the interests of the
ruling elite.
While the belief that political elites introduce social programs to serve their own
interests has become popular in academic circles, it has been challenged by writers
who argue that state social welfare programs were introduced because of the
pressures exerted by working-class people. These writers contend that it was the
working class that organized and campaigned for the introduction of social pro
grams. Proponents of this explanation such as Korpi (1983), Esping-Andersen
(1985), and Stephens (1979) emphasize what is known as the social democratic
class struggle in the development of social policy. Their approach is also some
times known as the power-resources model. These writers believe that the govern
ment introduced and expanded social provisions because highly organized labor
unions, working closely with democratic socialist or progressive political parties,
were able to mobilize working-class electoral support to bring about extensive
social reform. In this way, the working class was able to influence political elites
to introduce social programs. They also used their electoral strength to secure
political power for their own parliamentary representatives, who then introduced
the programs they needed.
An example of the use of interest group theory to explain the origins of statutory
provisions in developing countries is provided by Carmelo Mesa-Lago (1978) in
his analysis of the evolution of social security in Latin America. Mesa-Lago argues
that the introduction of social security in these countries is entirely the result of
groups acting to serve their own interests. This explains why social security
schemes emerged for different occupational groups at different times and reflected
their relative political strength. The most powerful interest groups, such as the
military and civil service, were not only able to secure the first social security
programs in the region but were also able to obtain programs that were the most
generous. Weaker occupational groups were only able to secure social security
coverage at a much later stage, and usually, these programs were less generous.
Similarly, the most organized and powerful trade unions and industrial occupations
were able to obtain relatively generous provisions fairly early in the historical
evolution of social security.
Various social policy writers have disagreed with interest group theory, arguing
that it overemphasizes the role of pluralist politics in the creation of state welfare.
They believe that the state does not merely react passively to the demands of
interest groups. Instead, they argue that the state has relative autonomy and is quite
capable of acting proactively to introduce social programs. It may do so for various
reasons including the belief that its social programs serve the interests of society
as a whole, rather than the sectional interests of specific groups. In a careful study
of the emergence of the British national health service, Frank Honigsbaum (1989)
shows how senior officials in the government's Ministry of Health came to the
conclusion that a centralized, state-funded and state-managed medical service
would provide the most efficient, cost-effective, and comprehensive health care
system. Their efforts to establish the health service began in the mid-1930s, long
before the British Labour Party won the general election in 1945 and made health
care a central element of its policy agenda. It was only at this stage that the creation
of the national health service became subject to interest group politics.
James Malloy's (1979) study of the creation of social security in Brazil disagrees
with Mesa-Lago's interpretation. He argues instead that it was the state that took
the initiative for the introduction of social security. This development was entirely
compatible with the country's corporatist political traditions, which were less
influenced by interest group politics than by the decisions of political elites and
bureaucratic managers. Skocpol (1992) reached a similar conclusion in her study
of the development of social policy in the United States. She believes that a state-
or polity-centered approach provides the best explanation for the emergence of
government social welfare. She not only produced empirical evidence to support
this claim but has shown that the historical facts do not support the idea that the
state reacts passively to the pressures exerted on it by organized interest groups.
Marxist Theories
The Marxist approach to explaining the origins and functions of state welfare
draws on many of the ideas discussed earlier. For example, this approach empha
sizes the importance of interest groups in the genesis of state welfare. Marxist
theories also reflect the influence of functionalism. As will be shown, Marxists
believe that government social programs have distinct functions in society. These
functions include the maintenance and perpetuation of the capitalist system and
the need to exert social and political control to prevent revolution. Marxist analysis
also emphasizes the role of the state in the emergence of social policy, arguing that
the state acts on behalf of capitalist interests and introduces social programs to
promote these interests. Finally, Marxists are unanimous in their view that the
welfare state is not socialist in character. They disagree with social democratic
writers who believe that the welfare state is a distinct and desirable type of society
and contend that it amounts to little more than a superficial modification of the
capitalist system.
Karl Marx himself did not write extensively about social welfare, but scholars
such as Pinker (1971) and Mishra (1977) have provided a useful account of Marx's
ideas on the subject. Marx and his collaborator, Friedrich Engels, believed that
governments always serve the interests of the capitalist class and that any social
programs they introduce will promote these interests. On the other hand, they
recognized that the working class can engage in political action to secure conces
sions from the ruling elite. Marx's analysis of the English Factory Acts concluded
that working-class action can bring about significant improvements. However, he
insisted that an authentic state of welfare can only be realized within the context
of a socialist society. It is in this society, where people contribute according to their
ability and receive according to their need, that the true ideals of social welfare
can be attained.
Although the Marxist approach was neglected in social policy circles for many
years, Marxist accounts of the origins and functions of state welfare were published
with increasing frequency in the 1970s and 1980s (Ginsberg, 1979; Gough, 1979;
Offe, 1984). These accounts generally emphasize two aspects. The first stresses
the role of state welfare programs in exerting social and political control over the
working class in an attempt to prevent revolutionary action. The second empha
sizes the way state welfare programs serve to promote the interests of capitalism
and ensure its smooth functioning.
To illustrate the idea that state welfare is used conspiratorially by governments
to prevent revolutionary action, Marxists frequently make reference to Bismarck's
use of social security as a political device. They note that Bismarck was not
concerned with the needs of the working class but rather with maintaining power.
Another example of this approach comes from Frances Piven and Richard Cloward
(1971), who studied the history of public welfare in the United States. These
authors conclude that the government employs social programs to control the labor
force. During recessionary periods, it expands these programs to prevent labor
unrest. However, during times of economic growth, it uses social programs
punitively to compel workers to stay in employment and work hard. Those who
cannot or do not work are given little assistance and are subjected to harsh
treatment to deter them from using the welfare system. In this way, the state
modifies its social policies purposefully and conspiratiorally to ensure labor
discipline and to exercise social control.
The idea that the state uses social programs to promote the functioning of the
capitalist system has been developed by James O'Connor (1973), who contends
that capitalist societies must meet two requirements to survive. The accumulation
function requires that capitalists are able to invest and make profits. The legitima
tion function requires that ordinary people accept the validity of the capitalist
system. To foster accumulation, the state introduces social programs such as
education, medical care, and housing to create an educated, healthy, and efficient
10ό THE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
labor force that can work hard and generate profits. Also, he points out that it is
government rather than capitalists who meets the costs of producing an efficient
labor force. In this way, the government reduces the cost of labor to capitalists and
further contributes to accumulation. To promote legitimacy, the state introduces
social programs that enhance social contentment. These programs include social
security for retired workers, services for disabled people, and income support for
those in need. Although they do not contribute to accumulation, they fulfill the
legitimation function by enhancing social harmony and preventing civil unrest.
However, O'Connor argues that the accumulation and legitimation functions are
contradictory and that sooner or later a crisis emerges. As capitalists demand
ever-increasing profits, and as people require more social welfare programs, the
state finds that it cannot pay for ever-expanding social programs. Eventually, the
system collapses under the weight of these internal contradictions, and capitalism
enters a phase of serious crisis.
Slightly different analyses of the origins and functions of state welfare have been
formulated by Marxist writers such as Ian Gough (1979), Norman Ginsberg (1979,
1992), and Claus Offe (1984). Gough emphasizes the role of state welfare in
fostering the reproduction of labor power. If capitalist societies are to maintain
high levels of economic growth, they must ensure that the workforce is skilled,
healthy, and able to work efficiently. At the same time, workers struggle to improve
their social conditions and they bring political pressure to bear on governments to
introduce social service programs. The concessions that are introduced are a result
of both the need for an efficient labor force and the struggles of workers. Never-
theless, because of their contradictory nature, capitalist welfare states cannot
sustain the twin requirements of accumulation and labor power reproduction
through social welfare programs, and ultimately they enter a phase of crisis, which
signals their eventual collapse. Responses to the crisis through either corporatist
or radical right political movements are doomed to fail. Ginsberg offers a similar
interpretation of the welfare state as an arena for conflict and crisis, but he has
augmented the traditional Marxist account by focusing on issues of gender and
race. The industrial welfare state not only involves class struggle but a struggle
against institutionalized patriarchy and racism. Offe draws on classical Marxist
themes to explain the origins and functions of state welfare as a response to the
need for crisis management in capitalist societies. Marx had predicted that capi-
talism was inherently crisis prone and that it would eventually collapse. Offe
believes that the Western welfare state has emerged as an attempt to resolve these
contradictions. It functions to socialize production and moderate the excesses of
capitalism. The welfare state is, therefore, an institutionalized response to the
inherent contradictions of capitalism.
Many other Marxist commentaries on the origins and functions of government
social welfare have been published, but those referred to here are good examples
of the genre. All share common features and all suffer from similar weaknesses.
Like functionalist theories, they assume that governments have clear agendas and
act in predictable ways in response to wider social forces. While particular events
may support this contention, a wider review particularly at the international level
shows that governments introduce social programs for many different reasons. As
with welfare industrialization theory, there is empirical evidence to show that
governments do not simply follow the dictates of capital or, for that matter, any
other social force. The evidence produced by social democratic writers such as
Esping-Andersen (1985) and Korpi (1983) also cast doubt on the idea that the state
introduces social programs to control and subvert the working class. As Marx
himself recognized, and as Gough and other Marxist social policy analysts con
cede, the working class is capable of engaging in effective struggles for reform.
When progressive governments representing the interests of the working class
introduce social programs, the proposition loses much of its value. Another
problem is that capitalists regularly oppose the introduction of social provisions.
If, as Marxists claim, these provisions serve the interests of capitalists, why do
they campaign to prevent their introduction? It is not widely known that Bis
marck's social security proposals were opposed by business elites and aristocrats
(Rimlinger, 1971). Similarly, business interests actively supported the efforts of
the Thatcher and Reagan administrations to retrench social programs in Britain
and the United States in the 1980s.
Diffusion Theory
The idea that social institutions are culturally diffused from some societies to
others is well established in historical studies of the ancient civilizations. German
anthropologists of the kulturhistorische school claimed that the rise of Western
civilization was significantly influenced by assimilating and adapting the beliefs,
practices, and institutions of other cultures. As was shown in Chapter 2, diffusion
ideas have been used in social science theories of Third World development in
which it is argued that Western capitalism spread to underdeveloped areas through
colonialism. Diffusion through international linkages is also a relevant element in
the work of the world system theorists who were mentioned in Chapter 2.
Using this perspective, some social policy writers have highlighted the role of
diffusion in the emergence of state welfare (Midgley, 1984a; Rys, 1964). These
writers emphasize the role of international linkages in the development of social
policy. While they do not deny that social welfare provisions emerge as the result
of endogenous factors, they claim that the role of diffusion has been seriously
neglected in accounts of the evolution of social policy. They also point out that the
failure to recognize the importance of diffusion has fostered complacency in social
policy circles. In many countries, social welfare programs have been based on
practices emanating from other countries and are not always appropriate to local
cultural, social, and economic realities.
This normative argument has featured prominently in Midgley's (1981, 1984b)
studies of the emergence of social work and social security in developing countries.
Using the diffusion approach, he claims that Western social work and social
security programs were introduced into Third World nations during colonial and
postcolonial times because they were regarded as superior and worthy of emula
tion. But they have not, he contends, been appropriate to the needs and circum
stances of these nations. In Midgley's analysis, therefore, diffusion has involved
an undesirable, one-way process. Another example is provided by Howard Glen
nerster (1991) in his account of the impact of radical right ideology on social
policy. Summarizing the spread of these ideas during the 1980s, he concludes that
the more economically dependent a country is on the United States, the more likely
it is to embrace radical right approaches.
Other writers have not been as critical of the diffusion of social policy innova
tions, claiming that many governments have in the past benefited from studying
the social policies and programs of other nations. Joan Higgins (1981) refers to
several studies where the positive implications of diffusion are recognized. For
example, in the late 19th century, the British Settlement House idea was replicated
in the United States with very favorable results. Similarly, German social security
innovations were emulated by many other industrial nations at the turn of the
century. As several historians (Hay, 1975; Semmel, 1960) report, British political
leaders such as David Lloyd-George and Winston Churchill studied the German
system and adopted many of its principles. In this case, imperial rivalry with
Germany was an important factor in facilitating the introduction of social security
in Britain. As Higgins points out, lesson learning can promote effective policy
development. Of course, it depends on what sort of lessons are being learned.
While most social policy experts would agree that the judicious transfer of ideas
under controlled conditions is desirable, the uncritical diffusion of innovations will
be less welcome. For example, the spread of radical right ideas from the United
States to other countries will hardly appeal to proponents of conventional state
welfarism.
Although the role of diffusion is recognized in accounts of the origins of state
welfare, research on the subject is sadly deficient. One exception is a quantitative
study by Peter Flora and Jens Alber (1981) into the determinants of welfare effort.
Examining various factors that contributed to the emergence of government
welfare programs in the industrial nations, they conclude that the diffusion factor
does not offer a plausible explanation of social policy development. However,
much more research is needed to test the role of diffusion in facilitating the
introduction of these programs.
N O R M A T I V E T H E O R I E S O F STATE WELFARE
Normative theories feature prominently in the field of international social welfare.

These theories are used for purposes of policy development and evaluation. They
help to formulate social policies and programs by describing in conceptual terms
what preferred social programs entail and what they will accomplish. Normative
theories are employed to evaluate government social programs by establishing the
criteria by which these programs can be assessed. As can be imagined, the field is
complex. There are so many different ways of looking at state social welfare
programs and determining whether they will meet specified goals or have a
positive or negative impact. Similarly, many different facets of state social pro
grams can be evaluated. Criteria to evaluate these programs can focus on specific
operational aspects or deal with wider issues related to their overall contribution
to society.
It is in this regard that a distinction needs to be made between the programmatic
evaluation of state welfare provisions and wider theoretical approaches that
provide a normative basis for evaluation and the formulation of social interven
tions. This chapter is concerned with these wider theoretical issues. The next
chapter focuses specifically on programmatic issues and with the impact of state
social provisions. However, as will be seen, an assessment of the impact of state
welfare also invokes wider normative positions. For example, it will become clear
that when writers such as Charles Murray (1984) contend that state social welfare
programs have harmed society, they do not do so in a normative vacuum. While
their empirical research and arguments may appear to be impartial and technical
in nature, they are in fact framed by wider normative beliefs. Similarly, when
Titmuss (1962) concludes that the welfare state has failed to reduce inequality in
society, he does so within a particular normative framework.
These frameworks are essentially ideological in nature. However, the role of
ideology in social policy has not always been recognized. It is often assumed that
social policy is technicist in nature, concerned with value-neutral issues of man
agement, planning, and decision making. Also, as was noted earlier, popular
explanations of the origins and functions of state social welfare such as the welfare
industrialization theory de-emphasize ideology, claiming that all societies, irre
spective of their value systems, will expand social provisions. It was only in the
mid-1970s, as Marxist and right-wing opposition to state welfare intensified, that
the importance of ideology was properly recognized. Another influence was
Titmuss, who stressed the role of values and ideology. His writings sought consis
tently to explicate the ideological beliefs governing different social policy inter
ventions (Titmuss, 1971, 1974).
One of the first systematic expositions of the role of ideology in social welfare
was published by two British writers, Vic George and Paul Wilding, in 1976.
Examining the major ideologies in British social and political thought, they
describe the social policy preferences of the adherents of these different ideologies.
Four major ideological camps are identified: the anticollectivists, who oppose state
intervention in social welfare; the reluctant collectivists, who favor limited gov
ernment intervention; the Fabian socialists, who champion the ideal of the welfare
state; and finally, the Marxists, who oppose state welfare in the context of capitalist
society. In 1994, George and Wilding updated their original work and added
additional ideologies including feminism and ecologism to the list (George &
Wilding, 1994).
Several other attempts to examine the ideological basis for state social welfare
have been undertaken. Some writers such as Peter Taylor-Gooby and Jennifer Dale
(1981) and Martin Hewitt (1992) have combined an analysis of ideological
approaches to state welfare with social science theory to formulate more incisive
normative positions in terms of which state welfare can be analyzed and evaluated.
Taylor-Gooby and Dale categorize social science writers into individualists, refor
mists, and structuralists. The individualists include Milton Friedman and Friedrich
von Hayek. The reformists include William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes,
Richard Titmuss, and John Kenneth Galbraith. The structuralists include Fred
Hirsch, critical theorists, and various Marxist writers. Hewitt extends the list by
discussing the work of critical theorists such as Jiirgen Habermas, structural
Marxists such as Louis Althusser, and the work of Michel Foucault. By examining
the positions taken by these diverse social scientists within the wider context of
ideological frameworks, these writers are able to explicate a variety of normative
positions about state welfare. This more sophisticated approach permits a much
more extensive normative analysis of government social welfare programs.
A more practical approach is taken by Midgley (1993, 1995) in his account of
the normative basis for social development. He identifies three normative positions
underlying social development strategies: the individualist or enterprise approach,
the populist or communitarian approach, and the collectivist or statist approach.
The enterprise approach contends that people's welfare is best promoted through
using the market, the communitarian approach stresses the role of community-
based interventions, and the statist approach believes in the merits of government
programs. Reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches,
Midgley suggests that an institutional perspective in which governments seek to
harmonize all three approaches within a dynamic developmental framework offers
the best normative basis for the promotion of people's welfare. These ideas are
examined in more detail in Chapter 9.
The development of normative analysis has also been fostered by studies of the
way political parties and movements have sought to use ideological beliefs about
state welfare to modify or sustain government social programs in recent years. As
will be shown in Chapter 7, state social provisions have been subjected to intense
economic and political pressures since the late 1970s when radical right govern
ments first secured political office and began to introduce significant changes to
existing welfare state approaches. Studies of the values and beliefs motivating
radical right groups as well as their impact on government social programs have
also contributed to the articulation of normative positions on state welfare. Exam
ples include comparative accounts of developments over the past decade by Mishra
(1990) and Glennerster and Midgley (1991).
These different accounts of the role of ideology in social policy have helped
clarify the different normative positions that can be used to frame social policy
formulation and assess the way state social provisions affect people's welfare. As
will be shown in the next chapter, normative conceptions derived from ideological
proclivities play a major role in determining how effective government social
welfare programs have been.
CHAPTER S IX
THE IMPACT OF STATE WELFARE

An International Assessment
Chapter 4 of this book showed that there has been a significant expansion in state
social welfare throughout the world during the past century. This chapter asks,
what has been the overall impact of this expansion? This is an important question.
Many social policy experts have taken it for granted that state intervention has
been positive and that the welfare of the world's people has improved significantly
as a result of government social programs. But they have not always been able to
support this claim with adequate data. In recent years, as criticisms of government
social programs have been made with greater frequency than ever before, the idea
that state intervention has had a positive impact has been challenged. It has even
been argued that government social programs have had a negative impact and that
needy people would have been better off if they had not received government
assistance. It is largely in response to these claims that more attention is being
focused on the impact of state welfare today.
However, this is a very complex research topic, and it is difficult to answer the
question of whether government involvement has been positive or negative. For
example, there are many methodological difficulties in undertaking research of
this kind. While evaluation research has become much more sophisticated in recent
times, it is difficult to define, operationalize, and measure program outcomes with
precision. These difficulties pose a challenge even when the outcomes of single
projects are evaluated. They become more complex when the outcomes of several
programs are assessed. It is obviously very difficult to evaluate the outcomes of a
111
multiplicity of state social programs at the national and international levels. These
methodological problems are compounded by the problems of data availability.
There is a serious paucity of data about the impact of state social programs. In
addition, data about social programs are unreliable.
Another difficulty concerns concepts and definitions. As was noted in Chapter
1, different countries define social programs differently, and this factor obviously
complicates any attempt to compare the impact of welfare provisions in different
parts of the world. Nevertheless, this chapter will attempt to look at the impact of
state intervention with reference to the various policies and programs that govern
ments have used to promote people's welfare. Although attention will focus on the
major social services, available information on other forms of state intervention
such as subsidies given through the tax system and other means will also be
mentioned.
It is also difficult to decide what the term impact involves. Impact can be defined
in different ways, and as will be shown, no standardized, objective criteria for
assessing impact have been adopted. For this reason, impact will be loosely defined
in this chapter as the positive or negative changes in social welfare arising from
state intervention. However, the notion of impact should not be considered only
with reference to improvements in people's welfare, but with reference to the
economy, equality, and other factors. Some of these wider issues will also be
discussed in this chapter.
Another problem is that social programs often have unintended outcomes. While
these programs may be planned with the best intentions in mind, they may have
the opposite effect. Although it would seem obvious that policy makers will take
corrective action, existing programs are often maintained even though they do not
reach their objectives. To complicate matters further, policy makers sometimes
conceal the real purpose of social programs. While they publicly declare that a
particular social program is being introduced for a particular reason, it may have
other purposes.
This raises the point that social policies are not always good or benevolent.
Social policies can be introduced to harm certain groups of people while benefiting
others, and they can also be used for ulterior political purposes. Social programs
have certainly been introduced in the past to obtain votes and to exert social
control. In addition, social policy is affected by ideology. Assessments of the
impact of state social welfare are inevitably influenced by the normative prefer
ences of the investigator. Indeed, social scientists with different political beliefs
have reached very different conclusions about the effectiveness of social programs
even when they have analyzed the same data.
Although these problems may suggest that it is not possible to make any valid
statements about the impact of government social welfare, it is desirable that an
attempt be made to review the limited research that has been undertaken in the
field. Unfortunately, relatively few systematic studies into the impact of state
social provisions have been published, and much of the evidence comes from
fragmented sources. Indeed, Vic George and Paul Wilding's (1984) attempt to
examine the impact of state social welfare in Britain is one of the few systematic
studies on the subject.
The Impact of State Welfare
Despite these limitations, it is possible to gain insights into the impact of govern
ment intervention in social welfare. Three major areas in which impact research has
been undertaken will be discussed in this chapter. The first concerns the overall
impact of social programs on people's levels of welfare. The second is the impact
of government social programs on the economy. The third deals with the impact
of government welfare programs on equality in society.
STATE I N T E R V E N T I O N
A N D PEOPLE'S WELFARE
As was noted earlier, it is very difficult to reach conclusions about the impact of
government social welfare programs in the international context. There are major
differences in welfare effort between governments in the different world regions.
For this reason, an assessment of the effects of state intervention on people's
welfare will be attempted with reference to the major world regions described in
previous chapters. An account of the impact of state social programs in different
regions of the world will make the information much more manageable and permit
global trends to be analyzed. The situation is further complicated because of
changes in government welfare effort over time. Because of recent cutbacks in
social provisions, impact may have been greater in the past than it is now. Although
data are limited, an attempt will be made to examine the impact of state welfare
historically.
Impact in the Industrial Countries
Chapter 3 showed that people in the industrial countries today enjoy very high
standards of living. Their incomes, life expectancy, and educational standards are
the highest in the world; they are healthy and well fed; poverty rates are low; and
most are adequately housed. Although there are variations among the industrial
countries, these nations have the highest levels of welfare in the world.
It was suggested previously that these achievements are attributable both to
economic development driven by industrialization and to government intervention
designed to promote people's welfare. It is because of economic development and
the creation of wage employment on a large scale that most people in the industrial
nations have incomes that permit them to meet their basic needs. However, it is
because of government intervention that the population has been educated, that
health has been promoted, and that people have been adequately housed. Govern
ments have also introduced social programs designed to solve social problems and
to maintain incomes when people are unable to work. Income security programs
play a major role in the industrial countries and have contributed significantly to
the reduction of poverty in these societies.
Some commentators have noted that the ability of the Western industrial nations
to combine economic and social welfare objectives represents a historic compro
mise between apparently antithetical forces: market capitalism and state interven
tion. Since the 19th century, many economists have argued that the economy
should be free of government intervention. Rapid economic growth would, of
itself, raise the standards of living of the masses. In view of the appalling social
conditions of the industrial revolution, social reformers and socialist thinkers
rejected this idea, claiming that the state needed to assume responsibility for
people's welfare.
While many believe that capitalism and welfare are opposing forces, the ability
of the industrial nations to promote economic development while improving the
levels of welfare of the population suggests that an accommodation is possible.
Indeed, these nations have been able to institutionalize policies that promote
economic growth and simultaneously ensure that the welfare of citizens is en
hanced. This ability has been variously described as the social democratic com
promise, the welfare state settlement, or the welfare consensus. However, as will
be shown in the next chapter, it is questionable whether this consensus will survive.
There is a good deal of evidence to support the contention that people in the
industrial countries enjoy high standards of living not only because of economic
growth but because of appropriate government social policies. In the three decades
following World War II, the industrial countries recorded high rates of economic
growth, and governments introduced or expanded a variety of social programs.
These programs include social security, public education, health care, state hous
ing, and similar services. From the 1950s until the mid-1970s, average annual rates
of economic growth were about 5%. At the same time, social expenditures in
creased steadily to about 2 1 % of GDP. As a result of economic growth and
government social intervention, standards of living for large numbers of people in
the industrial countries improved significantly. Indeed, as Andrew Shonfield
(1965) notes, this was an "extended period of prosperity for which it is impossible
to find a precedent" (p. 61).
A good example of how social programs combine with economy growth to
reduce poverty is provided by James Patterson's (1994) analysis of changes in the
poverty rate in the United States. He shows how the incidence of poverty declined
from about 2 1 % of the population in 1962 to 11% in the early 1970s because of
strong economic growth and antipoverty programs introduced by the Johnson and
Nixon administrations. Another example comes from Sweden, which, as Olsson
(1993) reports, raised the standards of living of its citizens to among the highest
in the world through a combination of economic growth and expanded social
provisions.
However, since the 1980s, the belief that state social provisions play a major
role in raising standards of living has been challenged by those on the political
right. The radical right's attack on state welfare has been supported by scholars
who have claimed that government social programs have produced few if any
benefits. In the United States, writers such as Irving Kristol (1978) contend that
the massive expenditures of the American welfare state have brought few positive
results. In Britain, Roger Hadley and Stephen Hatch (1981) reached a similar
conclusion, claiming that despite high costs, the welfare of the people had im
The Impact of State Welfare | | Q
proved only marginally. As they put it: "The growth of statutory services in the
past decades has brought only limited returns" (p.55).
During the 1980s, the belief that state welfare programs had failed to reach their
objectives was widely accepted. In addition, some writers argued that government
social programs have not only failed to improve standards of living but that they
have actually resulted in deteriorating social conditions. This argument has been
made most systematically in the United States with reference to income support
programs. Charles Murray's (1984) widely read book Losing Ground argues that
American social policies since the 1960s have aggravated the problem of poverty.
He claims that the poverty rate in the United States was declining steadily during
the 1950s and early 1960s. Then in the mid-1960s, the decline leveled off, and in
the 1970s the rate of poverty increased rapidly. This happened, he argues, because
eligibility requirements for government social assistance payments, provided
through the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, were
relaxed and benefit levels were increased. As a result of easy access to generous
social assistance, low-income people stopped working and instead became depend
ent on government benefits. They became idle, had many illegitimate children, and
engaged in crime and drug taking. As a result of state intervention, many commu
nities sank into decay. The emergence of an urban underclass, Murray argues, can
be directly attributed to government social programs. Although Murray's study is
primarily concerned with the AFDC program, he contends that other social pro
grams have also contributed to an increase in poverty.
Murray's views have been heavily criticized, and alternative explanations for
the increase in poverty in the United States have been offered. These explanations
pay more attention to deindustrialization and the decline in employment opportu
nities for unskilled workers in the etiology of poverty in American inner cities
(Wilson, 1987, 1996). It is also doubtful whether social assistance payments are
generous enough to support an indolent lifestyle. Another problem with Murray's
argument is that benefit levels were not only increased in the 1960s. Indeed, they
had already increased in the 1950s at the very time that poverty rates were falling.
A somewhat different argument about the alleged failure of state welfare is based
on the premise that state social welfare is unnecessary. Proponents claim that it is
not that government programs are harmful, but rather that they are not needed. One
example of this approach comes from a World Bank (1994) study of social security,
which contends that it is a myth that elderly people are poor and need government
aid. The study argues that elderly persons are among the most prosperous section
in society and that they do not require social security protection. However, what
the study fails to disclose is that elderly people in the industrial nations have a low
rate of poverty largely because of social security.
Indeed, it is in the social security field that detailed research into the positive
impact of government social programs on people's welfare has been undertaken.
James Schultz (1995), who is one of the most respected experts on the economics
of social security, has shown that the poverty rate for old people in the United
States declined from more than 50% before World War II to about 35% in 1959
and to about 13% in the early 1990s. While poverty was previously widespread
among elderly people, it is now concentrated among minorities and single women
who have no assets, savings, or private occupational pensions. Although social
security income alone is insufficient to maintain an elderly person above the

poverty line, it plays a major role in reducing poverty. On average, 39% of the
income of elderly households comes from social security. If these households did
not receive social security benefits, many more would be in poverty.
Similar conclusions have been reached about income maintenance programs in
other industrial countries. For example, George and Wilding (1984) report that
these programs, which include social insurance and social assistance, had signifi
cantly reduced the incidence of poverty in Britain. Without income benefits, 30.4%
of all families in Britain would have been in poverty. However, because of these
programs, only 4.4% of families were actually in poverty in the early 1980s.
Although research into the impact of government social security programs on
people's welfare in the industrial nations is quite extensive and positive, research
into the effects of other social services is limited. However, there is a good deal of
evidence to show that state intervention in the fields of health, education, and
housing have been positive. This is not to deny that there have been failures or that
examples of poor planning, policy errors, and maladministration can be found.
Nevertheless, many social policy experts agree that if governments had not
introduced public health or promoted education in the 19th century or intervened
in housing markets, social conditions in the industrial nations would not be as
favorable as they are now. The fact that people in these countries are healthy and
well educated owes much to the intervention of the state.
For example, Nicholas Timmins (1996) has examined educational data for
Britain that shows that there have been great improvements in access to education
since the 1950s. He reports that in 1950, only 30% of children aged 15 years still
attended school. The remaining 70% had dropped out, and most were at work in
low-paid industrial occupations. By 1992, almost 100% were still at school. In
1945, only 14% of children left school with a graduation diploma. By 1991, the
figure had increased to 65%. There has also been a massive expansion of higher
education. While university enrollments at the end of World War II were fewer
than 50,000, more than a million students were enrolled in higher education by
1993.
There have been similar gains in health care. However, as Brian Abel-Smith
(1976) points out, there are limits to the extent to which medical investments
continue to improve health conditions. When communicable diseases, unsanitary
conditions, malnutrition, and similar public health challenges are met, only small
incremental gains in the health status of a population are likely. Investments in
expensive high-tech curative treatments produce diminishing returns and do not
appear to make a significant impact on overall health conditions. On the other hand,
demand for relatively ineffective high-cost treatments has increased. Because of
diminishing returns to ever-increasing health care expenditures, many govern
ments are rationing medical services and insisting on cost-containment measures
that increase value for money in health care (Abel-Smith, 1976). Similar arguments
can be made about educational expenditures.
Housing is one field in which evidence concerning government intervention is
more mixed. There are many examples of the disastrous consequences of poorly
conceived public housing programs that involved the demolition of older housing
stock and its replacement with dense, high-rise apartment buildings. In the United
States and Britain, many of these large housing projects have now fallen into
The Impact of State Welfare
disrepair and are crime infested. On the other hand, countries such as Germany
have made more effective use of subsidies to house low-income people in the
private rental market. While large housing estates were also built, Mark Kleinman
(1994) notes that state intervention in housing in Germany has managed to avoid
many of the problems associated with large-scale state-owned housing in Britain
and the United States.
Nevertheless, as Timmins (1996) notes, Britain's housing stock increased from
just over 12 million dwellings in 1945 to 24 million by 1992, with the largest
increases occurring in the public housing sector. Of the new dwellings constructed
during this period, just over a half were built by the government. He points out
that state intervention also played a significant role in increasing basic amenities
such as indoor toilets and baths. It is also important to recognize the contribution
of fiscal incentives to promote home ownership in both Britain and the United
States. Mortgage tax relief, which is an example of what Richard Titmuss (1958)
called fiscal welfare, has been a very successful public policy instrument for
meeting people's housing needs. In Britain, the number of owner-occupied prop
erties increased from 4.5 million to 12 million between 1950 to 1980 (Clark &
Langan, 1993).
Impact in the Former Communist Nations
As was noted in Chapter 4, the communist countries introduced extensive social

programs. However, this did not mean that the quality of services was high. While
access to health care in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European communist
countries was universal, the quality of care left much to be desired. Similarly, while
most people were covered by social security, benefits were low. Similarly, educa
tional institutions were often crowded and there were long waiting lists for public
housing.
Nevertheless, it is recognized that state intervention ameliorated the excesses of
poverty and deprivation in most of the former communist countries and that the
basic needs of citizens were met. Although people in these countries did not enjoy
the high standards of social service provision to be found in many Western
European nations, state social programs ensured that they were reasonably well
housed, properly educated, adequately fed, and healthy.
An example of the impact of social policy in the former communist countries
comes from the field of housing. The United Nations (1993b) reports that the
former communist countries invested about 6% of GNP per annum in housing
construction in the years following World War II so that the majority of the
population was, by the mid-1980s, housed in dwellings constructed after 1945. In
the Soviet Union, where great damage had been inflicted to the housing stock
during the war, about 85% of the population was housed in dwellings constructed
after the war. About 90% of Soviet homes were equipped with an indoor flush toilet
and central heating by this time. Although these achievements were impressive in
view of war damage and the growth of the urban population, housing shortages
remained acute and there were long waiting lists. Many homes were overcrowded.
Indeed, the average floor space was less than half of that in public housing in the
industrial welfare states.
Apart from using the social services to promote the welfare of their citizens, the
governments of the former communist countries employed other methods to
promote social welfare. One of these was job creation. Work was a central element
of communist doctrine, and state social policy was designed to ensure that employ
ment was available to all. Unlike the Western welfare states, which have used
unemployment insurance to maintain people in times of recession, the communist
countries attempted to plan economic development in ways that maximized em
ployment and ensured that the population was kept productive. While this approach
provided jobs for the vast majority of the population and kept many out of poverty,
its success is questionable. As economic problems became more evident in the
1980s, opportunities for productive employment declined, and many millions of
workers were paid low wages for doing work that was not really needed. One study
estimated that 20% of the labor force in the Soviet Union was employed in
unproductive, unneeded jobs (Cook, 1993). In addition to this problem of "dis
guised unemployment," open unemployment gradually emerged as increasing
numbers of people could not find work. After the collapse of communism, many
unproductive enterprises were closed, and the unemployment rate increased rap
idly. Many former communist countries now spend large amount of money on
unemployment benefits (United Nations, 1993b).
The former communist countries also made extensive use of subsidies and child
benefits to promote the welfare of their citizens. The United Nations (1993b)
reports that these programs also contributed to a comparatively low incidence of
poverty. Both subsidies and transfer payments played a much larger role in meeting
people's basic needs than in the Western industrial nations. By the end of the 1980s,
a sizable proportion of average household income in the former communist
countries came from subsidies. In Hungary, these subsidies generated about a third
of average household income, and in the Soviet Union the figure was about 15%.
The government provided subsidies for rent, food, heating, schoolbooks, and even
recreational activities. Subsidies were often paid through the employer, but house
holds also received direct subsidies from the state. The United Nations (1993b)
concludes that these various subsidies made a "substantial" contribution to raising
living standards. However, as Linda Cook (1993) shows, they placed a very heavy
burden on the government's budget.
The fact that state welfare intervention had a positive impact on people's
material standard of living does not mean that social conditions in the former
communist countries were satisfactory. Most people were highly dissatisfied with
the corrupt, totalitarian political systems of these countries, and a high proportion
were fearful that they would be persecuted for expressing opposition. Human
rights abuses were widespread, and in addition, the pursuit of economic develop
ment often took place at the expense of human welfare. As one sympathetic
observer, Bob Deacon (1983), reports, the industrial development policies of the
former communist countries resulted in widespread environmental pollution. Poor
safety standards at work failed to protect workers from industrial accidents. In
addition, communist social policy had a blatant political function. Cook (1993)
has explored the role of social policy in exerting control over the labor force in
The Impact of State Welfare 119
some detail. As she reveals, social policy not only affects people's levels of welfare
but has a wider political impact.
Impact in the Countries of the Third World
The impact of state welfare in the developing countries has been mixed. While
some interventions have produced positive results, others have not been as suc
cessful. One problem has been the adoption of inappropriate Western approaches.
As was noted earlier in this book, the governments of many developing countries
adopted Western social welfare approaches in the 1950s and 1960s. Although the
introduction of these approaches was originally believed to be suited to the efforts
of the developing countries to modernize their societies, their uncritical replication
has been heavily criticized. Many analysts who have studied Third World social
policy have concluded that the adoption of Western social service programs has
not benefited the majority of the people of the developing countries. Some have
even argued that these programs have had a negative impact on the welfare of the
people (Hardiman & Midgley, 1989; MacPherson, 1982; Midgley, 1984a).
One example comes from the field of health care. During the 1950s, many
developing countries expanded their health services by constructing modern hos
pitals in the urban areas. They also opened medical schools to train physicians in
the latest techniques of curative medical care. In Africa, the construction of medical
schools became a national priority after independence from European rule. Be
tween 1963 and 1973, the number of medical schools in the region increased from
17 to 31 (Abel-Smith, 1976). Governments also imported expensive medical
technologies and established links with international pharmaceutical firms to have
access to the latest drugs and treatments.
While the expansion of modern medical services was pursued with the intention
of providing improved health care, it did not meet this objective. One problem is
that modern facilities were concentrated in the urban areas with the result that rural
people who comprise the majority of the population did not benefit from these
services. This resulted in wide disparities in access to medical care. Another
problem is that the emphasis placed on curative medicine resulted in the neglect
of primary health care. While medical doctors were being trained to apply sophis
ticated curative procedures with high-tech equipment, basic health problems such
as communicable diseases, malnutrition, and infant deaths were neglected. This
finding supports the argument that the adoption of Western style social policy
approaches has harmed the people of developing countries. Not only were the rural
majority and urban poor discriminated against, but their health conditions were
negatively affected by the use of inappropriate approaches.
The adoption of Western style social security in the developing countries further
illustrates the problem. As Midgley (1984b) shows, Western style social security
programs were introduced in many developing countries during the 1950s and
1960s, but these programs catered only to those in regular wage employment in the
modern sector of the economy, excluding the majority of the population in the agrarian
and urban informal sectors. Consequently, modern social security programs reach
only a very small proportion of the population. Jean Victor Gruat (1990) found that
social security protection in Africa ranged from 1% of the population in Chad,
Gambia, and Niger to 22% in Egypt and 24% in Tunisia. Carmelo Mesa-Lago
(1992) reports that coverage in Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Colum
bia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru was less than a third of the labor
force, while in the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, and Paraguay it
was less than 15%. Similarly, in a recent study, James Midgley and Edwell Kaseke
(1996) found that social assistance programs in Zimbabwe made a negligible
contribution to people's welfare in the country's rural areas where poverty is high
and the need for assistance is great. Very few people know about the existence of
the government's social assistance program and even fewer apply for benefits.
Obviously, programs of this kind have a very limited impact on the welfare of the
people of developing countries.
In addition to the problems of limited coverage, social security programs in some
Third World regions have been poorly managed and their impact has been limited.
Carmelo Mesa-Lago's (1989, 1992, 1994) extensive research into social security
in Latin America has shown that the administration of many programs leaves much
to be desired. Many employees are hired because of political patronage, wastage
is widespread, and overstaffing is common. As a result, these programs have high
administrative costs, which are passed on to their members, reducing the value of
their benefits. Many programs consume as much as 10% of total expenditures on
administration. In Europe, the figure is about 2%. While the problem is not as
widespread in other Third World regions, there is general agreement that social
security programs have done little to meet the basic needs of people in the
developing countries.
Similar problems characterize other social service programs. With a few excep
tions such as Hong Kong and Singapore, public housing programs in Third World
countries have not had much of an impact on the housing problem. As Margaret
Hardiman and James Midgley (1989) point out, many housing projects in Third
World countries do not cater to low-income people but to civil servants, teachers,
and other officials who can afford private housing. Another example comes from
the social work services. Many developing countries have constructed residential
facilities for needy children, people with disabilities, and other special needs
populations. However, these expensive projects only help a fraction of those in
need.
On the other hand, it cannot be claimed that the introduction of modern social
policies in developing countries has been disastrous. One field in which there has
been a positive impact is education. Although educational programs in many
developing countries have also been based on Western approaches, attempts have
been made to increase their relevance to local needs, and they have had a positive
impact. School enrollments have increased rapidly and literacy rates have im
proved. As the United Nations (1993b) reveals, the proportion of children of
primary school age in the Third World who are actually enrolled in school had
reached 7 8 % by 1990. Although the figures are lower in Africa and the Arab states,
many millions of children today have the opportunity of attending school and of
being educated. While it was noted in Chapter 3 that school enrollment increases
have declined in some parts of the Third World in recent years, the trend toward
universal primary enrollment is clear. The situation is less clear with reference to
higher education. As Kevin Watkins (1995) notes, many developing countries

continue to place disproportionate emphasis on tertiary education even though it
is very expensive and jobs for graduates in many developing countries are scarce.
It should also be pointed out that social policies in Third World countries have
not been shaped entirely by foreign influences. Some Third World countries have
developed unique forms of social provision such as community development that
are well suited to local realities. In addition, many Third World governments are
now reformulating their social policies to enhance their appropriateness. Signifi
cant progress has been made in primary education, the provision of clean drinking
water, and the eradication of communicable diseases. With the help of international
agencies such as UNICEF and the World Health Organization, many governments
have introduced highly effective programs designed to combat child malnutrition
and improve people's basic health (United Nations Children's Fund, 1995, 1996).
One example of the effectiveness of appropriate state intervention is the provi
sion of clean drinking water. There have been significant improvements in access
to clean drinking water in many parts of the Third World in recent years as a result
of appropriate government action. Perhaps the most dramatic improvement has
been recorded in Bangladesh where 92% of the population now has access to safe
drinking water. In 1980, only 42% of the population had access (United Nations
Children's Fund, 1995). As this example reveals, appropriate government inter
vention can make a major contribution to meeting the basic needs of people even
in a very poor country such as Bangladesh.
Government programs have also contributed to the significant declines in infant
mortality that have been recorded in many parts of the Third World. The United
Nations (1993b) reports that infant mortality has declined even in countries where
economic growth has been stagnant. Low-cost treatments such as oral rehydration
therapy, improved access to immunization, and the expansion of primary health
care are major innovations that have contributed significantly to this trend. This
finding also attests to the power of appropriate government social policies to bring
about major improvements in social welfare even when progress in economic
development lags. However, there is a real danger that further retrenchments in
government provisions will reverse the progress that has been made.
EFFECTS O F G O V E R N M E N T
SOCIAL WELFARE O N THE E C O N O M Y
Government social welfare programs involve the mobilization, allocation, and

redistribution of resources, and often these resource flows are sizable. Social
programs now account for a large share of government budgets in many countries.
As was shown in Chapter 4, social programs consume as much as 30% of GDP in
some Western European countries.
Because resource flows of this size have an obvious effect on the economy, there
has been a fair amount of research into the relationship between social expenditures
and economic development. Some writers have claimed that social expenditures
have a negative impact on economic growth. It is alleged that they impede savings
and investment in the economy. It is also claimed that they reduce incentives and
thus stifle economic growth. On the other hand, some writers have claimed that
social expenditures promote economic growth. They regard expenditures on edu
cation and health care as human capital investments that contribute positively to
economic development. Others use Keynesian theory to argue that social expen
ditures can be used to stimulate demand and promote economic growth.
These arguments will be reviewed with reference to the available evidence.
However, it should be recognized that they are all based on a conception of
economic development in which the importance of investments in industry and the
modern sectors of the economy are emphasized. This conception also places
emphasis on the role of employment creation as a central element in development.
Although this approach to economic development is ubiquitous, its future rele
vance may be questionable particularly in postindustrial economies where the
service sector is becoming increasingly dominant and where self-employment is
expanding. Its relevance has also been questioned in developing countries where
the modern sector remains small and where traditional agriculture and the informal
sector continue to provide opportunities for millions of people to engage in
productive labor.
Negative Economic Effects
The claim that state social welfare provisions harm the economy has been made
with reference to general economic growth trends as well as particular aspects of
economic performance. The former approach usually examines a country's overall
economic development record with reference to the extensiveness of the govern
ment's social welfare system. The latter approach is more concerned with the
effects of social programs on particular economic issues such as savings, incen
tives, and labor market flexibility.
The former approach is usually invoked when a country experiences economic
difficulties. For example, Britain's sluggish economic performance in the 1960s
and 1970s was often attributed to its welfare programs. Robert Bacon and Walter
Eltis (1976) claim that Britain's economic problems are caused by the expansion
of the public sector, primarily social welfare, which has diverted scarce resources
from productive areas. Since it is the "marketed" output of goods and services that
produces wealth, the shrinkage of the marketed sector by the growth of the
unproductive government sector reduces economic growth. Several political and
business leaders agreed with this analysis, claiming that Britain was failing to keep
up with its European partners because it had an extensive social welfare system.
However, it was seldom mentioned that European countries such as Sweden,
Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria (which were then experiencing higher rates
of economic growth than Britain) had even more extensive social provisions. For
example, while Sweden recorded far higher rates of economic growth than Britain,
it had the most comprehensive welfare state in Europe (Olsson, 1993).
However, when Sweden began to experience economic difficulties in the early
1990s, its social programs were immediately singled out as the primary cause of
its economic problems. The role of currency fluctuations, globalization, and other
purely economic factors are generally disregarded. Similar statements are now
being made about Germany, which has had a strong record of economic growth
since the 1950s. An article in the American magazine Newsweek (Samuelson,
1996) attributes Germany's current economic difficulties to its generous unem
ployment benefits, high payroll taxes, and other social provisions. However, the
author fails to consider the impact of reunification, currency overvaluation, and
the pressures of globalization on the German economy. As Michael Wilson (1993)
points out, the costs to the German economy of reunification have been particularly
onerous.
The question of whether social programs have retarded economic growth has
been investigated in some depth by Theodor Marmor, Jerry Mashaw, and Philip
Harvey (1990) with reference to the United States. Comparing economic growth
trends with social expenditures from the 1950s until the end of the 1980s, they
found that while social spending increased steadily during this period, the Ameri
can economy also grew. Although the country's rate of economic growth has not
been as rapid as it was during the 1950s, the authors attribute this slowing to
deindustrialization, global competition, and other economic factors rather than
increased social spending.
Marmor et al. (1990) also compared international data for 19 industrial nations,
but they could find no relationship between social spending and economic growth.
Testing the argument that social spending retards economic development, they
could find no evidence that countries with high social expenditures performed
poorly when compared with countries that spent comparatively less on social
programs. If social spending retards economic growth, it would be expected
that countries with high spending would have low economic growth rates. Simi
larly, countries with low social spending should have high economic growth
rates. However, the data did not support either contention, and the authors
deduced that social welfare effort is not directly related to economic growth.
Instead, they concluded that factors other than state social welfare determine
economic performance.
A good deal of research has been undertaken into the relationship between
economic growth and social welfare effort in Sri Lanka, a small Asian country that
has historically committed a sizable proportion of the government budget to social
programs. As Laksiri Jayasuriya (1996) points out, it is often claimed that Sri
Lanka's welfare policies are misguided. While the country has achieved a high
degree of equality, improved the health and educational standards of the popula
tion, raised life expectancy, and eradicated the worst excesses of poverty, critics
claim that it has done so by sacrificing economic growth. They contend that the
country would have attained even higher standards of living if it had placed more
emphasis on economic development rather than social welfare. Reviewing the
literature on the subject, Jayasuriya rejects these arguments. He concludes that the
country's growth rates were quite respectable by international standards and that
the government's attempt to address the country's pressing social needs brought
about significant welfare gains without sacrificing growth. Indeed, he points out
that recent decisions to retrench social programs and to attract foreign investments
have resulted in heightened inequality and deteriorating social conditions.
In addition to these broad findings about the allegedly negative impact of social
programs on economic growth, some economists have claimed that specific as
pects of economic performance are adversely affected by social provisions. One

of these aspects is the need for savings. In an important study, the American
economist Martin Feldstein (1974) argues that welfare programs such as social
security reduce the need for savings and, therefore, retard investments in the
economy. Without investment capital the economy will languish. Examining
trends in the United States, Feldstein contends that the savings rate had been
depressed by social security and that the country's economy had suffered. Although
Feldstein's arguments are persuasive, they have not been supported by empirical
studies. Several analyses (Barrow, 1978; Lesnoy & Leimer, 1979) conclude that
the savings rate in the United States had not been harmed by social security, and
a major study of 16 industrial nations (Koskela & Viren, 1983) found no negative
effect.
Another argument is that state social programs harm the economy because they
reduce labor market flexibility. Many economists believe that labor is a commodity
that should be bought and sold. When labor markets are allowed to operate without
interference, employment opportunities are enhanced. These economists are criti
cal of government intervention in labor markets. They believe that when govern
ments introduce labor regulations or social programs, they distort the labor market
and harm employment. The result is higher unemployment and a decline in
people's welfare. These economists believe that unemployment has risen in the
industrial nations because governments provide excessively generous social bene
fits. They also impose high payroll taxes and place many restrictions on employers.
Employers cannot hire or fire workers as they need to. In addition, because workers
enjoy generous social benefits they are reluctant to move to seek new work
opportunities. As labor mobility is reduced, the economy suffers. In addition,
government regulations and welfare benefits make it possible for workers to
demand higher wages and to strike in support of their claims. Because of govern
ment interference, generous benefits, and frequent strikes, employers are increas
ingly using labor-replacing technologies or moving their businesses to countries
where governments do not interfere in the labor market. As a result, jobs are
exported to other countries and domestic unemployment increases.
There is, of course, ample evidence to show that the Western countries have
experienced declining employment opportunities in traditional industrial occupa
tions in recent decades. While it is frequently claimed that this decline is due to
high labor costs, generous social provisions, and excessive labor regulations, the
empirical evidence does not support this contention. In a major international study
designed specifically to investigate the effects of government social programs on
labor markets, Rebecca Blank (1994) and her colleagues conclude that there is
little evidence that labor market flexibility is undermined by social programs.
While they agree that government programs can influence labor markets, their
research in a number of countries concludes that social programs do not have a
negative effect on labor market flexibility. They found, for example, that improve
ments in pension benefits did not encourage people to retire early in Japan,
Sweden, and the United States. They also found that the introduction of less
restrictive layoff regulations in Belgium, Germany, and France did not in fact result
in greater layoffs. Another finding is that increases in fringe benefits for workers
in Spain had no impact on employment trends. Similarly, while Japan has strict
labor regulations, the country has enjoyed enviable rates of economic growth. They
conclude that contrary to what is believed, social programs do not have a major
impact on labor markets.
It is also believed that social programs have a negative effect on the economy
because they weaken incentives. Capitalist economies only function if there are
incentives for people to make money either through investing their capital in
enterprises or through working hard. It is claimed that social programs reduce
incentives both to invest and to work. With reference to investment, it has been
argued already that high labor costs reduce the profits of employers and that their
incentives to hire workers are reduced. Because of high labor costs, they use
labor-replacing technologies or invest in other countries where labor costs are
lower. Similarly, private investors who provide the capital for economic expansion
are reluctant to pay high taxes, and they too move their capital abroad or invest in tax
avoidance schemes. Another aspect of the argument is that high taxation is needed to
maintain a generous welfare system and that businesses and higher-income earners
move their capital abroad to escape the tax burden. This is another way, the critics
argue, that state welfare depresses incentives and damages the economy.
The other aspect of the incentives argument is that generous social programs
reduce people's desire to find employment and work hard. Because of generous
unemployment, social assistance, and other benefits, many become lazy and
irresponsible. Those who work are required to pay high taxes to support those who
are dependent on social programs. The result is that they become disillusioned and
are also disinclined to work hard. As incentives are undermined, the economy
suffers. It is also claimed that the problem of weakened incentives is exacerbated
when the population as a whole comes to expect government to take care of its
needs. When this happens, people lose their sense of personal responsibility and
become dependent on the state.
Extensive research into the question of incentives has been undertaken over the
years. Most of this research has focused on the disincentive consequences of
income support programs. As was noted earlier in this chapter, Murray (1984) is a
leading critic of the American government's AFDC program, which, he claims, has
reduced people's need to work. Because the government pays generous benefits,
many people choose to stay at home and have more children so that their benefit
levels can increase. Many also choose not to marry so that they can continue to
receive income support. Murray illustrates his argument by using the hypothetical
case of a couple in Pennsylvania called Harold and Phyllis, who are encouraged
by the AFDC system to have illegitimate children, stay out of work, and shirk their
social responsibilities. Although the AFDC system was designed with the best
intentions, Murray argues that it has seriously harmed work incentives and has hurt
the economy.
There is evidence to show that income support programs can have disincentive
effects for people whose skills and educational qualifications are low and whose
employment prospects are poor. Because these people are usually only able to find
poorly paid jobs, many are better off on income support. Because people on income
support are snared in the welfare system, this phenomenon is known as the poverty
trap. They can only escape the poverty trap if they can find jobs that pay
significantly higher incomes than they receive through benefits.
Although the problem of the poverty trap would suggest that income support
programs deter recipients from finding employment, studies in the United States
have shown that the situation is much more complex. First, income support benefits
are often so low that they cannot meet the basic survival needs of welfare
recipients. For this reason, the vast majority of welfare beneficiaries supplement
their benefits through working in low-paid jobs of one kind or another. They do
not, of course, declare these earnings. The studies also reveal that the income these
welfare recipients receive is also very low so that they cannot survive on employ
ment alone. So, income from both social benefits and employment are needed to
ensure survival (Jencks, 1992; Rank, 1994).
These findings reveal that recipients of income benefits do not lack the incentive
to work and support their children. Although they may be engaging in illegal
employment, they do not sit at home enjoying a luxurious lifestyle. Their manipu
lation of the system is, in fact, an indication of their determination to cope and care
for their dependents. The studies also suggest that if they could find remunerative
employment, they would not subject themselves to a degrading welfare system
(Rank, 1994). In fact, the studies reveal that many welfare recipients are motivated
to work and share the same career aspirations as many other people. The problem,
then, is not the disincentives of the allegedly generous welfare system but the
disincentive effects of low-paid employment. Until this problem is addressed, it is
likely that many people will remain dependent on income support. Attempts to
enhance the income potential of poorly educated and unskilled people through j o b
training, minimum wages, and innovations such as the earned-income tax credit
in the United States are positive steps to raise incomes for people with low earnings
potential and free them from the poverty trap (Burtless, 1994).
Positive E c o n o m i c Effects
Although it is usually assumed that social programs harm the economy, there is
evidence to show that these programs actually benefit the economy. While it is not
true that all social programs have this effect, many make a positive contribution
to economic growth. One example is social programs that contribute to human
capital development. The idea of human capital development originated with
studies of educational expenditures, which concluded that these expenditures
should not be viewed as a form of consumption but as an investment that produces
concrete rates of return not only to individuals but to society as a whole (Becker,
1964; Harbison, 1967, 1973).
Economists such as George Psacharopoulos (1973, 1992) have shown that it is
possible to quantify the rate of return to investments in education and that
educational investments generate rates of return to society of between 13% and
26%. Psacharopoulos has also shown that investment decisions can be manipulated
to produce the highest rates of return on educational expenditures. Similar studies
have been undertaken in the fields of health care, nutrition, maternal and child
welfare services, and housing. In health care, appropriate investments can signifi
cantly increase labor productivity and reduce the economic costs associated with
debilitating diseases (Abel-Smith & Leiserson, 1978).
Social programs can also contribute to economic performance through increas
ing social capital formation. The concept of social capital was developed by the
American sociologist James Coleman (1986), who uses it to refer to people's

ability to create solidaristic or "dense" social relationships. These relationships are
not only important for sociological but for economic purposes. When people form
solidaristic relationships, they not only interact more frequently but are more
trusting and reciprocal. This has obvious implications for economic development.
People are more likely to engage in economic exchanges in situations where they
trust those with whom they interact. Also, they are more likely to participate in
joint ventures, and their ability to find productive employment is increased.
Empirical research into the economic implications of enhanced social capital
formation has been pioneered by Robert Putnam and his colleagues (1993), whose
study of economic development in Italy concludes that social integration is a key
element in successful economic development. They found that regions with dense
social relationships have higher rates of economic growth than those characterized
by low social integration.
If social integration promotes economic development, it follows that social
welfare programs that foster social harmony have positive consequences for the
economy. British social policy writers such as Richard Titmuss (1971) stress the
role of social welfare in enhancing social integration. Social policy, Titmuss
believes, is essentially about increasing social solidarity in society. Marshall
(1950) also points out that social welfare enhances citizenship, promotes people's
social rights, and increases their participation in society. Both have direct relevance
for economic development. As is well known, civil conflict has a devastating
impact on the economy. Conflict disrupts employment, destroys physical infra
structure, and deters investment. Economic difficulties in many countries such as
Northern Ireland and several former communist countries have been exacerbated
by civil conflict. The role of social policy in fostering social harmony and
promoting economic development is, therefore, an important one.
A final way in which social welfare contributes to economic development is
through enhancing consumption and aggregate demand. This idea is based on the
theories of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that it is the responsibility of
governments to maintain effective levels of economic demand. If demand for
goods and services in the economy is high, employment increases and incomes
rise. Demand can be maintained by various means such as modifying interest rates
and injecting money into the economy, particularly during recessionary times.
Social programs put resources into the economy and thus increase the purchasing
power of households. In this way, these programs contribute to economic growth.
These arguments were generally accepted in the years of the Great Depression.
Through work creation and other social programs, many governments stimulated
demand and enhanced economic production.
Although Keynes's ideas were widely used to cope with recessionary tendencies
in the Western economies in the 1950s and 1960s, they are no longer popular. Since
the 1970s, when the economic problems of many countries appeared to be resistant
to Keynesian remedies, many governments embraced monetarist ideas in an
attempt to control inflation. Nevertheless, many economists still believe that
Keynes was correct in his belief that governments can promote economic growth
through increasing demand. Indeed, many governments continue to manipulate
interest rates to achieve this goal. Although few governments today use social
programs to stimulate demand, some economists believe that state social welfare
expenditures can increase demand and contribute to economic development. How

ever, it should be recognized that this is a minority point of view and that many
mainstream economists today urge government to retrench their social expendi
tures to promote economic growth.
Nevertheless, it is clear that state welfare programs do inject sizable resources
into the economy. It is also clear that these resources enhance economic activities.
Schultz (1995) has shown that about $230 billion is pumped into the American
economy through social security payments each year to many people who would
not otherwise have the means to purchase the goods and services they require to meet
their basic needs. Not only would the withdrawal of these benefits have a negative
impact on their standards of living but would also seriously harm their purchasing
power and, in turn, hurt the enterprises from whom they obtain goods and services.
Another example of the use of social programs to foster consumption is the
American food stamp program. Although this program is intended to help poor
people, it maintains demand for agricultural products and functions to subsidize
the country's farmers. As Karger and Stoesz (1994) reveal, about 22 million people
receive food stamps at a cost of more than $21 billion a year. The absence of this
program would have a negative impact on farmers, wholesalers, and the millions
of retail outlets that supply food products to food stamp beneficiaries.
Government social programs also contribute to economic growth through pur
chasing goods and services from the private sector. Government schools, hospitals,
clinics, prisons, housing projects, and social agencies sign contracts worth millions
of dollars each year with private suppliers for schoolbooks, medical equipment,
drugs, supplies, and other requirements. They also contract with the construction
industry for buildings and the maintenance of facilities. In addition, governments
are now increasingly contracting with private providers for services. The total
value of these contracts is not known, but in the industrial countries it is huge. If
these contracts were withdrawn, the economic impact would be devastating. It is
not surprising that those who oppose government social welfare programs seldom
mention the fact that the private sector would be negatively affected if government
social spending were terminated.
State welfare also contributes positively to the economy by creating and main
taining employment. Government social programs employ millions of profession
als, administrative personnel, and other workers. Although data on this topic are
limited, Jon Kolberg (1991) has estimated that the proportions of those employed
in government social programs range from a low of 6% of all employees in Austria
to a high of 2 5 % in Sweden. The highest proportion of employees in government
social programs were to be found in the Scandinavian countries where, on average,
about 2 3 % of all employees were involved in these programs. In Britain, France,
and Italy, the average was about 11 %. In Austria, Canada, Germany, and the United
States, the average was about 7%. The fact that government offers employment to
so many people has an obvious effect on the economy. Not only would unemploy
ment rise if these jobs were terminated, but demand would fall. On the other hand,
many critics claim that government employment on a large scale has a negative
effect on economic development. It is also argued that many public sector social
service workers are lazy and unproductive. Although these views are popular, the
evidence to support these claims is slim.
EFFECTS O F S T A T E S O C I A L
WELFARE O N EQUALITY
Research into the impact of government social programs has also examined the
extent to which these programs have affected social equality. In the 19th century,
before the governments of the industrial countries expanded the social services,
inequality was pervasive. Most of these countries had a small class of wealthy
aristocrats and capitalists, a small but growing middle class, and a large class of
workers who lived in conditions of poverty and squalor. Social reformers and
political activists on the left were committed to reducing these inequalities.
Communists believed that revolutionary action was needed to overthrow the ruling
class and create a classless society in which all were equal. Democratic socialists
and progressive liberals did not advocate revolution but nevertheless believed that
society could be made more equal if the poor were given access to education, if
employment opportunities and incomes were increased, and if social conditions
were improved.
As government social programs expanded in the industrial countries during the
20th century, many assumed that these programs would reduce social inequalities.
Although the founders of the welfare state did not explicitly design social programs
to address the problem of inequality, they believed that increased access to
education, health care, housing, and social security would help to promote greater
equality. These ideas were expressed by the famous British socialist thinker R. H.
Tawney in 1931, who argued that society would become more equal if government
made available to all its citizens the services that only the middle class and rich
currently enjoyed.
The debate about equality and the welfare state was originally concerned with
issues of class and income. As will be shown, the original belief that government
social programs would reduce class inequality has been challenged by several
investigators. Some have also claimed that access to the social services remains
highly inequitable. In addition, the debate has recently been broadened to include
gender and ethnicity. Many feminist scholars contend that government social
programs do not reduce gender inequality but instead discriminate against women
and maintain a patriarchal social system. Similar arguments have been made about
the impact of social programs on ethnic minorities. These arguments will be
discussed in more detail in the following sections, which deal, first, with the impact
of state welfare on class and income inequality and, second, with gender and ethnic
inequalities.
Social Welfare and Class Inequality
There are many examples of how access to education, health care, and decent
housing varied by class before governments introduced extensive social programs
in the middle decades of this century. It was shown earlier in this chapter how
government social programs in Britain significantly increased access to education,
housing, and health care for millions of ordinary citizens after World War II
(Timmins, 1996). The proportion of children from lower-class families who attend
school has risen dramatically, the numbers who have access to public health care
have increased, and housing conditions for many lower-income families have
improved. Similar trends have taken place in many other industrial nations. Many
social policy experts believe that these improvements would not only increase
equal access to social welfare but be accompanied by a general trend toward greater
equality in society. Like Tawney, the British sociologist Τ. H. Marshall (1950)
argued that the extension of citizenship to include social rights had increased
equality. The introduction of social services, and particularly universal social
services, had altered the existing pattern of inequality in Britain. Although class
would survive, it would be significantly mitigated by the extension of social rights
in the modern welfare state.
However, many social policy experts have claimed that state social welfare has
not reduced class inequality in society to any significant extent. In his study of
income distribution in Britain, Titmuss (1962) was one of the first to criticize
government social programs for failing to reduce class inequalities. Previously, in
a lecture given in 1955, he noted that middle-class people benefit disproportion-
ately from government social services (Titmuss, 1968). The same point was made
in 1958 by Titmuss's colleague, Brian Abel-Smith, who argued that the middle
class is the major beneficiary of the welfare state. The middle class, he argued, has
better access to government social programs and receives better standards of
service than the working class. He claimed that middle-class people are also able
to avoid paying their fair share of the taxes needed to fund these services.
In a major study of who benefits most from government social welfare programs,
Julian Le Grand (1982) confirms the view that the middle class gains more from
these programs than lower-income groups. Examining public expenditure trends,
he concludes that middle-class people benefit more from public education, health
care, and housing programs. In addition, he found that they also benefit dispropor-
tionately from public transport. As Martin Powell (1995) notes, Le Grand's study
not only confirmed Titmuss's formative opinion about the inegalitarian impact of
state welfare but has since consolidated this belief into conventional wisdom.
Relatively little research into the way social programs affect equality has been
undertaken in other countries. One exception is Midgley's (1984b) study of social
security in the Third World. As was noted earlier in this chapter, Midgley found
that modern social security programs cater primarily to those in wage employment
in the modern sector of the economy. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that
government tax revenues are often used to subsidize these programs even though
the tax burden in developing countries is disproportionately borne by the poor,
who were not covered by modern social security. The net result is that people in
regular wage employment, who are relatively well off, are being subsidized by the
poor, who are excluded from these programs. Although policy makers introduced
social security with the best intentions, its impact has not been beneficial.
An unintended consequence of this research is that right-wing critics have used
its findings to argue for the abolition of government social programs for middle-
class people. Arguing for a residualist approach, they believe that the state should
only provide services for those who are unable to fend for themselves. Of course,
this is not what Titmuss and his supporters had sought. For them, the remedy is to
be found in creating a more egalitarian welfare system that increases redistributive

flows within the framework of universal services. They recognize that the abolition
of universal services will in fact heighten inequalities. Indeed, there is evidence to
show that means-tested programs targeted on the poor not only fail to reduce
inequalities but often provide very meager benefits. By excluding the middle class,
these programs also fail to get electoral support and eventually do little except
stigmatize and provide their clients with minimum survival benefits. For this
reason, progressive criticisms of the impact of social services on equality are today
more guarded and likely to insist that reforms take place within the framework of
comprehensive state provision.
The idea that government social programs have an inegalitarian impact has also
been criticized on empirical grounds. In a major review of Le Grand's original data
as well as subsequent statistical evidence, Powell (1995) concludes that the belief
that middle-class people benefit disproportionately from state welfare has been
exaggerated. Focusing particularly on the British health service, Powell argues that
while there are inequalities in access to health care between the classes, the
situation is not as negative as Le Grand had claimed. He believes that those who
criticize government social programs for failing to reduce inequality are far too
pessimistic and unmindful of the achievements of the welfare state. Michael
O'Higgins (1985) reached a similar conclusion, arguing that state social programs
do have an equalizing effect on income distribution. This was particularly true of
income support programs, which are "markedly distributive towards lower income
groups" (p. 178).
Nevertheless, many social policy writers are still concerned about the impact of
social programs on equality. Many stress the validity of Titmuss's (1968) argument
that the social services always involve the redistribution of resources. Social
programs have a differential effect on the well-being of different groups of people,
and any analysis of their impact must take account of these redistributive flows.
Clearly, more research into the way social programs affect inequality in society is
needed. As has been shown, much of the work into this question has been
undertaken in Britain. More research is needed to determine how social welfare
services affect patterns of inequality in other parts of the world. Research of this
kind is particularly important in view of the changes being made to state social
provisions in many countries. As social programs are retrenched, it is likely that
social inequalities will increase.
Social Welfare, Gender, and Ethnic Inequality
Feminist analyses of the impact of government social programs on women have

transcended the original concern with class in social policy circles. As was noted
earlier, socialists and social reformers of the late 19th century were primarily
concerned with class, and few paid attention to gender inequality or to inequalities
based on race and other differences. Indeed, the introduction of government
welfare programs reflected established notions of the role of men as breadwinners
and women as mothers and homemakers. It is not surprising, therefore, that when
social programs were first introduced they reinforced existing gender patterns. For
example, social security programs operated on the assumption that women would
remain at home and rear children. These programs were consequently designed to
provide income support to wives and children in the event of the termination or
disruption of the male worker's income. When women began to enter the labor
force in sizable numbers in the decades after World War II, social policy makers
were slow to recognize the changes taking place, and social security continued to
focus on male workers. Women workers were discriminated against and provided
with inferior benefits.
Many feminist analyses of the impact of state welfare have concluded that these
programs continue to reinforce established patriarchal patterns in society. As
Elizabeth Wilson (1977) argues in one of the first systematic feminist accounts of
social policy, government social programs not only reflect the dominant ideology
of patriarchy but continue to reinforce patriarchy in the way benefits are deter
mined, programs are organized, and services are delivered. The underlying as
sumption in most of these programs is that women should be subservient to
traditional family patterns and child-rearing practices.
Some writers such as Fiona Williams (1989) offer a more complex argument.
She believes that government social programs have had a contradictory function.
While state welfare in countries such as Britain has provided women with material
improvements such as better access to health care, income support, housing, and
other services, it has constrained women's rights because these improvements have
taken place within the context of patriarchal ideology. Attempts to free women
from these constraints have only been achieved after protracted struggle. In
Britain, the payment of child benefit to mothers rather than fathers, protection from
domestic abuse, and to the ability of women to obtain housing in their own right
were only secured after determined campaigns.
Other feminist writers such as Mimi Abramovitz (1988) take a different position,
arguing that government social welfare programs function to subjugate women.
Focusing on income support programs in the United States, she contends that these
programs are used punitively by policy makers to control women. Women who are
not in traditional family situations are effectively punished by a system that coerces
them to behave in predetermined ways. The ultimate expression of this control is
the way income support programs penalize women who have additional children.
These programs thus limit women's inviolable reproductive rights. In addition,
benefit levels are so low that women are effectively trapped in poverty. Another
way the program controls women is through proletarianization. The recent intro
duction of job training and placement services are not designed to liberate women
but to prepare them for low-income employment that perpetuates their low status.
These studies suggest that the impact of state social programs on women has
been either ineffective or negative. In an extensive survey, Lois Bryson (1992)
concludes that government social programs in most industrial countries have failed
to significantly improve the position of women. Women still earn less than men,
occupy lower positions in the labor force, and are often more poorly educated than
men. While women have undoubtedly entered the labor force in larger numbers
than ever before, they are effectively proletarianized and assigned low-paying,
tedious, and demanding jobs. It is only when the dominant interests of capital in
these countries are modified that a truly caring feminist welfare state will emerge.
Similar arguments have been made with reference to the way state welfare
programs affect minority groups. Writers such as Norman Ginsberg (1992) believe
that state welfare in the industrial countries cannot meet its goals until its racially
structured, patriarchal, capitalist principles are replaced with a truly egalitarian
value system that recognizes all people as full members of society. Current social
policies in these nations effectively maintain and even exacerbate racial and ethnic
divisions. Comparing Britain, Germany, Sweden, and the United States since the
1970s, he concludes that their social policies have contributed toward widening
class, race, and gender divisions. With specific regard to ethnicity, he found that
state welfare programs discriminate against immigrants, stereotype them, and
reflect popular racist sentiments. Social programs will only have a positive effect
on the welfare of all when progressive feminist and antiracist groups succeed in
changing the very foundations of the welfare state.
Race has clearly played a major role in American social policy even though its
influence has been neglected by social science analysis. In an important historical
study, Jill Quadagno (1994) shows how race issues have limited the effectiveness
of social programs in the United States. She provides a major example from the
New Deal. Because President Roosevelt needed the support of Southern politi
cians, he excluded African Americans from key elements of the social security
program. Similarly, President Johnson's War on Poverty did not attain its objective
because it became intertwined with the civil rights struggle and produced a white
backlash. Similarly, President Nixon dropped his Family Assistance Plan when he
realized that it would undermine low-wage levels in the South and alienate white
Southern voters, who were increasingly supporting the Republican Party. Far from
enhancing racial equality, government social programs have reinforced racial
attitudes and discriminatory practices. Social policy, she argued, will continue to
be ineffective until the problem of racism in society is addressed.
CHAPTER SEVEN
SOCIAL CHANGE AND

THE FUTURE OF STATE WELFARE
The decades following World War II were viewed by many social policy writers
of the time as a period of consolidation and even fulfillment in the expansion of
state social welfare. The adoption of comprehensive social provisions by gov
ernments in the industrial nations, the commitment by communist regimes to
meeting the needs of their citizens, and the incremental expansion of state
social provisions in the developing countries all pointed to the acceptance of
state social welfare. During the 1950s and 1960s, many believed that government
social welfare programs were here to stay. Many regarded state intervention as an
integral and desirable feature of modern society. It was widely believed that state
responsibility for social welfare was dictated by the demands of an advanced,
industrial society. It was also believed that the welfare state transcended political
differences and fulfilled modern conceptions of citizenship. The idea that govern
ments should assume responsibility for the welfare of their citizens was accepted
by people on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
By the end of the 1970s, the consensus around state social welfare had been
badly shaken. In many industrial countries, economic difficulties and political
disenchantment with centrist politics brought radical right governments to power.
These governments sought to curtail state welfare programs, which they claimed
were responsible for inflation, high unemployment, and other economic problems.
Economic pressures were also being felt in the communist countries where social
spending had slowed. In many developing countries, economic difficulties were
compounded by indebtedness. Third World governments that had borrowed freely
on international financial markets found that they could not repay their loans.
134
Social Change and the Future of State Welfare 135
Turning to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for assistance,
many were compelled to adopt structural adjustment programs and to reduce their
social expenditures.
By the 1990s, the institutionalization of state responsibility for social welfare
had been undermined. In the industrial countries, right-wing political parties that
promised to reduce government social welfare programs attracted electoral sup
port, and in many of these countries, they have retrenched state welfare provisions.
In view of serious fiscal problems, the welfare programs of most developing
countries were slashed. In the former communist countries, state social programs
are now in disarray. Compared to the situation that existed after the Second World,
government intervention in social welfare has been significantly altered. Indeed,
in the 1950s, few social policy experts could have predicted the changes that have
now taken place.
This chapter discusses these changes. It examines the historical events that
undermined previously accepted beliefs about the desirability of state social
welfare and shows how governments in different parts of the world have modified
their social welfare systems in response to economic, political, and other changes.
It reviews the different theoretical ideas that provide a normative basis for these
developments. Finally, it discusses various predictions about the future of state
welfare. As will be seen, social policy writers have offered different interpretations
of recent events and reached different conclusions about the future of government
social welfare.
THE CRISIS OF STATE WELFARE
Scholars who have written about the history of state social welfare over the past
century often divide the evolution of government provisions into distinct periods
or phases. The first phase, which began during the late 19th century and ended
with World War II, is often identified as a period of formative development in state
welfare. This was the period when the first social security and other social
programs were introduced. The second phase, which began at the end of World
War II and ended in the mid-1970s, is often regarded as the "Golden A g e " of the
welfare state (Pierson, 1991). This was a period of consolidation and stability when
the idea of state responsibility for welfare was widely accepted. The third phase,
which lasted from about 1975 to about 1985, is often described as a period of crisis
(Mishra, 1984,1990). It was during this time that the global economy experienced
severe difficulties and when conventional antirecessionary remedies based on the
ideas of John Maynard Keynes appeared to be ineffectual. It was also a period
when the popular acceptance of government welfare programs appeared to be in
decline and when electorates looked to right-wing political parties for solutions.
The fourth phase, which began in the early 1990s, has involved significant
modifications to the welfare state. The future direction of this phase in the history
of state welfare is uncertain.
The Golden Age of State Welfare
The Golden Age of state welfare was a period of rapid and sustained economic
growth in many parts of the world. The major industrial nations recorded average
annual growth rates of 4.4% in the 1950s and 5.5% from 1960 to 1973. The lowest
rate of economic growth among the industrial nations was recorded in Britain, but
even here, average annual growth rates were about 3 . 1 % (Pierson, 1991). The rates
of economic growth recorded during this time were unprecedented. Indeed, as
Hugh Heclo (1981) notes, no comparable period of such sustained growth has ever
been recorded.
At this time, the developing countries also experienced high rates of economic
growth. David Morawetz (1977) reports that from 1950 to 1975, per capita rates
of economic growth in these nations exceeded the expectations of the most
optimistic economists. While most of these countries had experienced little if any
growth for centuries, the adoption of national economic development policies
produced positive results. Morawetz reports that these countries recorded average
annual per capita growth rates of 3.4% during the 1950s and 1960s despite rapid
increases in population growth. Some countries in East Asia, the Middle East, and
South America exceeded this rate.
High rates of economic growth permitted many governments to expand their
social programs. Expansion was most marked in the Western industrial countries.
Social expenditures in the major Western industrial nations increased from an
average of 12.3% of GDP in 1960 to 21.9% of GDP in 1975 involving average
annual increases in social expenditures of about 6.3% per annum (Pierson, 1991;
Taylor-Gooby, 1991). These increases were also unprecedented, and as Heclo
(1981) notes, they were accompanied by significant increases in taxation and state
intervention in social and economic affairs. He reports that government revenues
increased more rapidly than economic growth in many industrial countries and that
government spending increased at even higher rates. Consequently, many indus
trial countries incurred public spending deficits although, as he notes, these deficits
were not unusually high.
Although information for the communist countries and the nations of the Third
World is incomplete and unreliable, there is evidence to show that social expendi
tures in these regions also increased significantly. Examining data for the Soviet
Union and four major Eastern European communist countries, the United Nations
(1979) reports that social expenditures averaged 16% of GDP in 1970. Data for 31
developing countries in the early 1970s showed that 13 countries spent less than
6% of GDP on social services, 11 spent between 6% and 9%, and the remaining
spent more than 9% of GDP. The lowest allocations were in poor African countries
such as Ethiopia (3.6%) and in low-income Asian countries such as Nepal (1.2%).
The highest were to be found in Chile and Uruguay where social expenditures were
25% and 13%, respectively. The report notes that social expenditures were increas
ingly steadily in the developing countries. Indeed, social expenditures rose more
rapidly in many of these countries than economic growth rates.
These increases permitted the rapid expansion of state social welfare provision
in many parts of the world. These trends were described in Chapters 4 and 6 of this
book. While coverage and the quality of social provision were far from perfect,
millions of people experienced significant improvements in their standards of

living as a result of economic growth and the expansion of state welfare programs.
A combination of sustained economic growth together with appropriate state
intervention revolutionized social conditions in the industrial nations. Although it
is now recognized that communist leaders made exaggerated claims about their
achievements, there were similar improvements in the communist countries. Peo
ple in the developing countries also benefited from the expansion of state welfare
even though access to social services and the appropriateness of these services left
much to be desired. As was shown in previous chapters, educational standards and
health conditions improved significantly in many parts of the Third World because
of effective government intervention.
Rapid economic growth, widespread prosperity, and the expansion of govern
ment social provisions in the postwar period led many to believe that the bitter
class struggles of the 1920s and 1930s were over. At the time, many agreed that
the welfare state offered a "middle way" between capitalism and communism and
that it represented a highly desirable form of social and economic organization that
would end poverty, unemployment, and deprivation and ensure high standards of
living for all. It would also enhance social solidarity and achieve the goals of
citizenship. These ideas were expressed in the convergence hypothesis or welfare
state consensus discussed in Chapter 5. Proponents of the convergence hypothesis
believe that ideological beliefs are of relatively little importance in the creation of
state welfare. Indeed, there is evidence to show that a convergence of ideological
interests around the idea of extensive state intervention in social welfare had
occurred. Convergence found expression in the idea of a welfare consensus in the
1950s and 1960s when political parties of quite different persuasion appeared to
accept that extensive state social provisions were needed to ensure prosperity.
Coupled with Keynesian economic planning, many believed that state social
welfare would guarantee minimum social standards for all (Mishra, 1984; Pierson,
1991).
While the idea of a welfare consensus has been challenged in recent years
(Barnett, 1986; Pimlott, 1988), many commentators believe that there was wide
spread agreement between divergent political groups around these issues and that
centrist politics dominated the period after World War II. In Britain, Conservative
leaders such as Harold MacMillan and Rab Butler accepted the need for state
intervention within the framework of a capitalist economy. Indeed, MacMillan's
ideas had previously been formulated in a book titled The Middle Way, written in
1938, long before he became the country's prime minister. From the left, demo
cratic socialist thinkers such as Anthony Crosland (1956) also accepted the desir
ability of a mixed economy. Similar ideas were adopted in many European
countries where consensus involved the creation of formal corporatist accords
between labor, business interests, and the state (Mishra, 1984, 1990). In the
United States, New Deal liberalism was institutionalized, and despite the
dominance of Cold War anticommunism, the idea of a management-labor accord
was widely accepted (Abramovitz, 1992). As Christopher Pierson (1991) has
shown, a commitment to these ideas also found expression in documents as varied
as the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and the constitution of India,
both of which guaranteed adequate standards of living within the framework of
state intervention.
The Collapse of the Welfare Consensus
By the mid-1980s, when radical right political leaders such as Prime Minister
Thatcher and President Reagan had begun their second terms of office, it had become
clear that the welfare consensus was shattered. While there were differences of opinion
about the extent to which the fundamental principles of state welfarism were
modified, government responsibility for social welfare had clearly become a
contentious issue. Not only were the major political parties of the Western indus
trial nations polarized over state welfare intervention to an extent that would not
have seemed possible 20 years earlier, but electorates also appeared to be divided.
In addition, right-wing political leaders such as Mrs. Thatcher ridiculed the idea
of consensus. Consensus, she argued, involved the abrogation of fundamental
beliefs. She took pride in informing the media that unlike her predecessors in the
conservative movement who believed in consensus politics, she would never
compromise her beliefs in the free market, traditional values, and individualism.
While opinion polls in countries such as Britain suggest that most ordinary
people continue to believe that governments have a responsibility to care for the
needy (Golding & Middleton, 1982; Taylor-Gooby & Dale, 1981) electoral behav
ior suggests otherwise. In addition, some studies have shown lessened support for
state welfare when questions are phrased in a less positive way (Harris & Seldon,
1987). As Peter Taylor-Gooby (1991) reveals, popular support for means-tested
social programs directed at minorities, welfare mothers, and the unemployed is not
as strong as support for universal provisions such as social security and national
health care. Electoral support for state provision directed at the poor has probably
decreased as right-wing governments have further stigmatized their recipients.
This has further eroded the sense of solidarity that Richard Titmuss and other
writers hoped would form the basis of the modern welfare state. As popular social
programs such as social security are increasingly portrayed as serving the interests
of elderly people at the expense of younger taxpayers, further erosion of collective
support for state welfare may be expected.
Numerous causes of the collapse of the welfare consensus have been identified
by social policy writers, but there is widespread agreement that economic and
political changes have played a major role. A major factor has been the decline in
economic prosperity that occurred in many countries around the world. In the
industrial nations, economic growth rates slowed as traditional manufacturing
industries retrenched in the face of increased international competition and as
inflation and other difficulties hampered performance. Slower economic growth
resulted in higher rates of unemployment for semiskilled and unskilled workers
and deteriorating social conditions in traditional centers of manufacturing industry.
Highly organized blue-collar communities fell into decay as old industries closed
and as many workers emigrated in search of work. By the late 1970s, plant closures
in the United States had resulted in the loss of 39% of the jobs that had existed in
these industries in 1969 (Bluestone & Harrison, 1982).
The trend toward global economic integration was accelerated when President
Nixon suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold in 1971. This decision
effectively ended the era of fixed exchange rates adopted in terms of the Bretton
Woods Agreement and increased the flow of money around the world. Floating
Social Change and the Future of State Welfore 139
exchange rates produced new economic uncertainties and ended the financial
security from which postwar economic prosperity had depended. These develop
ments created economic difficulties for many countries, which were seriously
exacerbated in 1973 when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) dramatically increased the price of crude oil. The global energy crisis
resulting from the first oil shock caused havoc around the world, and many
economies were thrown into recession. OPEC repeated its price hike in 1979,
further dampening the prospect of economic recovery. A unique feature of the
recession of the 1970s was the new phenomenon of stagflation. While recessions
had previously been accompanied by falling prices, the 1970s were characterized
by high inflation and stagnating economic growth.
As a result of these economic problems, many countries could not sustain the
continued expansion of their welfare programs. To adjust to the new economic
realities, many industrial nations sought to reduce social spending. Although few
actually reduced expenditures in absolute terms, many slowed the growth of social
spending. In the ten years between 1975 and 1985, the growth of social expenditure
in the leading industrial nations had been reduced by almost 50%. At the same
time, social conditions deteriorated. Unemployment, homelessness, and poverty
increased and pressures for government services grew. These problems were
aggravated by changing demographic realities that required higher social expen
ditures. As populations aged in many industrial nations, the need for social security
and health care increased, placing greater demands on the economy.
Another factor was rising expectations. During the years of economic prosperity,
social programs had expanded and many had become more generous. This raised
demand for improved benefits among voters, employees, and the recipients of
income support programs. In the industrial nations, the welfare rights movement,
trade unions, and political parties all increased pressure on government to improve
the quality and level of social provisions. In the developing countries, demand for
education, health care, and other social programs also increased significantly.
However, rising expectations could not be matched by increased expenditures,
especially during times of economic difficulty.
The communist countries also experienced economic difficulties during the
1980s, and there is evidence to show that they too reduced social expenditures.
The United Nations (1979) reveals that social allocations in Poland and Czecho
slovakia fell in the late 1970s. At the same time, increased military expansion in
the Soviet Union placed greater pressure on social budgets. However, as was noted
in Chapter 4 of this book, social security expenditures in many of the former
communist countries have increased since the collapse of communism as unem
ployment has increased and as governments have sought to protect workers from
destitution.
Many developing countries experienced serious economic difficulties in the
1970s. Many had increased their social expenditures at higher rates than economic
growth and many borrowed to support the expansion of these programs. As global
interest rates fell after the oil shocks, many developing countries increased their
borrowing in an attempt to reflate their economies. However, this only exacerbated
the problem, and many found that they could not meet their debt obligations. A
United Nations (1993b) study found that expenditures on health and education fell
in many developing countries between 1982 and 1987. In Africa, government
expenditures were lower at the end of the 1980s than at the beginning of the decade
in 11 of 29 countries for which information was available. A study of social
expenditures in nine Latin American countries in the 1980s revealed that real per
capita social spending fell in all of these countries. By 1985, average social
expenditures in these countries had dropped to about 70% of their 1980 level.
The economic difficulties of the 1970s were amplified by political changes. With
economic uncertainty, many voters in the industrial nations turned to political
leaders such as Mrs. Thatcher and President Reagan who promised quick and
effective solutions. They dexterously manipulated populist sentiments, blaming
economic difficulties on the trade unions, immigrants, and work-shy welfare
recipients. Their claim that government was the cause of economic problems
resonated with many voters. In addition, they attacked the welfare consensus and
the centrist liberalism, which they claimed had become ineffective. They argued
that Keynesian remedies were not working and that social expenditures were
causing economic ruin. They also attracted electoral support by their insistence
that permissiveness, a decline in family values, and a lack of respect for authority
had aggravated economic and social problems. Strong leadership, effective eco
nomic management, and a reduction in government waste would, they promised,
bring a return to prosperity.
The Radical Right and the Welfare Crisis
The elections of Mrs. Thatcher in Britain and President Reagan in 1979 in the
United States were turning points in the history of state welfare. Not only did these
leaders introduce significant changes in domestic social policy, but their influence
spread to many other parts of the world as well. As the leader of the most powerful
country in the world, President Reagan was able to exert considerable global
influence. The sway of the United States in international agencies such as the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank further promoted the interna
tional spread of radical right ideas. As global economic competition increased, and
as governments grappled with new economic realities, political parties on the left
also embraced fiscal restraint and curtailed the expansion of state welfare. Euro
pean socialists such as French President Mitterand and Australian labor leaders
such as Bob Hawke introduced pragmatic economic and social policies that were
hardly compatible with socialist ideas. All adopted cost-saving measures that
significantly affected state welfare programs.
President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher led the radical right's attack on the welfare
state. Both leaders abandoned Keynesianism and implemented radical monetarist
economic policies designed to bring inflation under control. Both also retrenched
state social programs. Both challenged the power of the labor movement and
effectively limited people's expectations of government. Both advocated a return
to traditional social values by supporting conservative causes around the family,
religion, and authority. The combination of economic liberalism, antistatism,
traditionalism, and populist authoritarian leadership proved to be highly effective
and gave both leaders a secure electoral base from which to challenge the postwar
welfare consensus (Midgley, 1991).
The rise in interest rates to unprecedented levels in both the United States and
Britain had a dramatic impact on job security, popular expectations, and trade
union militancy. As both countries plummeted into recession, unemployment
increased dramatically. Unemployment in the United States rose from 5.4% in 1979
to 9.7% in 1982. In Britain, the unemployment rate increased from 4.5% in 1979 to
10.4% in 1982 and to 11.9% in 1983 (Mishra, 1990). The use of unemployment as
an instrument of economic policy may have been deplorable, but it had the desired
effect. As workers feared for their jobs, labor reduced its demands and people's
attitudes toward government began to change. In Britain, where the labor move
ment was better organized, Mrs. Thatcher's government confronted the unions
directly and scored significant victories, particularly over the miners, who had
traditionally been the most militant of the trade unions. At the same time that
economic growth was stunted, generous tax concessions were made to corpora
tions, the wealthy, and the upper middle class. As Kevin Phillips (1991) notes, the
Reagan administration's policies produced a massive concentration of wealth in a
society already known for its inegalitarianism. A similar although less marked
change took place in Britain where tax concessions were accompanied by an
aggressive program of denationalization, which resulted in the privatization of
many state-owned industries. At the same time, poverty rates increased signifi
cantly. In the United States, the poverty rate rose to 15.3% in 1994; this was higher
than any previous year since 1960. In Britain, the poverty rate climbed from 6.7%
to 12.0% between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s (George & Howards, 1991).
In the United States, the Reagan administration directed its attack on state
welfare by first retrenching programs serving needy and vulnerable groups and by
then turning attention toward more popular programs such as social security. By
the end of the president's first term, the Aid to Families With Dependent Children
(AFDC) program had been cut by 14%, child nutritional programs were reduced
by 28%, the food stamp program was cut by 14%, and unemployment insurance
had been reduced by 17%. The community service block grant program, which
funded a variety of community development projects in low-income neighbor
hoods, was cut by a massive 37% (Midgley, 1992b). In addition, eligibility rules
were tightened and the duration of benefits reduced (Karger, 1992). Although the
administration made an attempt to undermine social security, this move was
politically risky and by 1984, when the president was campaigning for his second
term, he declared his unequivocal support for the program. Other elements of the
radical right agenda were also relaxed. High rates of unemployment were politi
cally unacceptable, and before the end of President Reagan's first term, monetary
controls were relaxed to promote growth. Despite the cuts imposed on unemploy
ment benefits, additional resources were made available with the result that
unemployment compensation expenditures increased. The return of a Democratic
Congress in 1984 placed further limitations on the Reagan agenda. Despite these
limitations, President Reagan implemented many of the radical right's antiwel
farist proposals. Perhaps the most important strategic impact of his administration
was the creation of a large budget deficit. Tax concessions and a massive increase
in military spending produced a deficit in the federal budget, which put an effective
limit on government spending well into the next century (Karger, 1992).
Similar retrenchments took place in social service programs in Britain. How
ever, despite the British government's rhetoric, these changes did not have a
dramatic impact on social spending. During the period of the first Thatcher
administration, social spending actually increased (Pierson, 1991). Much of this
increase was due to payment of unemployment benefits to support the large
numbers of people who had lost their jobs through the imposition of monetarist
policies. Subsequently, social spending leveled off and has remained stable,
fluctuating between a low of 22.9% of GDP in 1979 and a high of 24.5% in 1985.
By the end of the decade, it was 23.2% (Glennerster, 1991; Le Grand, 1990).
While the British government did not succeed in significantly reducing social
spending, it halted the apparently inexorable rise in spending that characterized
the postwar years. However, significant changes in budgetary allocations were
made within the social sectors. While social security and health care spending
increased, allocations to education and housing decreased. As the government
introduced a radical program of privatization, selling off public housing to private
owners, public housing expenditures fell dramatically. Other changes were also
introduced. Child benefit was frozen, effectively devaluating it. Commercial
health care was encouraged, and major managerial reforms based on the concept
of internal markets were introduced within the National Health Service. Private
education was boosted, and state schools were permitted to opt out of local
government control. Ancillary services provided directly by government agencies
in hospitals, schools, and other facilities were privatized. Although the government
produced a Green Paper on social security that proposed significant modifications
to the country's social security system, the changes that were eventually adopted
were watered down, and the social security system remained more or less intact.
The overall results of these developments are mixed. While the radical right did not
bring about a major retrenchment of the British welfare state, the growth of social
expenditure has been halted and state welfare has been restructured. In addition,
the terms of the debate on social welfare have been changed, and previously
accepted beliefs about the role of government in social welfare have been altered
(Clark & Langan, 1993; Glennerster, 1991; Hills, 1990; Pierson, 1991).
Similar trends have been observed in the other industrial nations. While rela
tively few governments embraced the tenets of the radical right with the ideological
zeal of Mrs. Thatcher or President Reagan, many governments imposed new limits
on social spending or retrenched social provisions. As Pierson (1991) notes, the
steady increases in social spending that characterized the Golden Years of the
welfare state have come to an end. Although social spending continues to rise in
most of the industrial nations, the rate of increase has slowed considerably. In
Germany, a milder version of radical right ideology, Chancellor Helmut Kohl's
wendepolitik, promised but did not produce a major alteration to the German
welfare state (Mangen, 1991). This was partly because of a relative absence of
ideological fervor in German politics but also of the ability of corporatist systems
to maintain a substantial degree of consensus around social policy issues. As
Ramesh Mishra (1990) notes, nations that forged a successful corporatist alliance
did not reject state welfare to the extent of Britain or the United States. However,
recent events in Germany suggest that more significant changes are likely in the
future. It should also be noted that in some countries such as Australia, corporatist
arrangements between government, business interests, and organized labor have
produced accords that have resulted in retrenchments in social programs (Beilharz,
Considine, & Watts, 1992).
In France, President Mitterand was able to limit social spending and make minor
alterations to state welfare provisions. However, the efforts of his successors to
significantly reduce social spending were met in the winter of 1995 with wide
spread industrial unrest. Attempts by the previous conservative federal government
in Canada to retrench state welfare provision were also resisted, and generally,
only limited modifications were introduced (Lightman, 1991). On the other hand,
the election of radical right provincial governments has been accompanied by more
significant reductions. In Alberta, the right-wing Populist Party has succeeded in
making major changes to the province's social programs, and in Ontario, the
election of the radical right Conservative government in 1995 has been accompa
nied by sizable social service reductions (Thompson, 1996).
In Sweden, cutbacks in state social welfare were also imposed. Although the
Swedish economy experienced sustained economic growth and maintained high
levels of employment when the British and American economies were in deep
recession, economic growth slowed and unemployment increased during the late
1980s. In 1990, the governing Social Democratic Party introduced an austerity
package that would have included a wage freeze and other retrenchments. When
the government failed to obtain support, it resigned. The conservative government
that came to power proposed various measures designed to reduce public spending,
and while it failed to introduce radical changes, it is clear that the consensus around
state welfare has been seriously shaken. Many commentators on Swedish social
policy now believe that the Swedish welfare state will survive but that further
expansion is unlikely.
In the Third World, indebtedness has had a serious impact on social programs.
As was noted in a previous chapter, many Third World countries borrowed freely
on global financial markets during the 1970s when the cost of borrowing was low.
With the dramatic increase in interest rates in the early 1980s, many were faced
with large debt-servicing demands, and many were unable to meet their obliga
tions. The problem of indebtedness has since reached serious proportions and has
been a major cause of the retrenchments of state welfare in the developing
countries. As was noted earlier, social spending in many developing countries
decreased significantly during the 1980s.
Although decreases in social spending in developing countries were dictated
largely by economic factors, they have also felt the influence of radical right
ideology through the agency of the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, which have imposed their economic ideas on governments seeking interna
tional credit. Monetarist and similar doctrines have guided the lending policies of
these agencies, which require the imposition of structural adjustment programs.
These programs instruct governments to liberalize their economies, cut public
expenditures, and scale back social programs. As a result of structural adjustment,
education, health, and other social programs have been seriously retrenched. As
was noted in Chapter 4, in many parts of Africa, rural clinics have no drugs, schools
are overcrowded, social service staff are demoralized, and income support pro
grams have been abolished. The rise in poverty in many parts of the Third World
has been directly attributed to these policies (Watkins, 1995).
Major changes to state welfare have also taken place in the former communist
states as a result of economic problems and ideological changes arising from the
transformation from communist rule. As these countries introduced major market
reforms and abandoned central economic planning, many state-owned enterprises

closed and others reduced production. As a result of these developments, unem
ployment rates increased rapidly. While many of the former communist nations
have also sought and been given credit by the international agencies, controls over
social spending have not been imposed to the same extent as in the developing
countries. While economic liberalization has been vigorously pursued, social
programs have been maintained to cushion the effects of marketization. It is for
this reason that social security spending, particularly for the unemployed, has
increased in several former communist countries.
Although the governments of most developing countries have retrenched their
social programs because of economic difficulties and the imposition of structural
adjustment, a few have done so because of their commitment to radical right
ideology. The most obvious case is Chile during the military rule of General
Pinochet. With the backing of the military, the general's government dismantled
one of the most extensive welfare states in Latin America. As Silvia Borzutsky
(1991) reports, the influence of radical right ideology on these changes was direct
and decisive. Chilean economists who had studied at the University of Chicago
under leading monetarist economists such as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger
were able to implement their ideas with the result that the economy was extensively
privatized and deregulated. The social security system, which was based on
universal principles, was transformed into a system of individualized retirement
accounts managed by private firms. These firms were eventually taken over by
large, American-owned insurance companies. Evaluations of the new social secu
rity system have not been very positive. The cost of the change was substantial,
inequalities have increased, benefit levels are low, and the risks associated with
foreign ownership are troubling. It is perhaps telling that the country's armed
forces were excluded from the "reform" and continue to be covered by a univer
salistic state-managed social insurance system (Borzutsky, 1991; Gillion & Bonilla,
1992; Mesa-Lago, 1994). Despite these disadvantages, the Chilean model has been
viewed favorably by several other Latin American governments including Argen
tina, Mexico, and Peru, where the Chilean innovations are being emulated.
Although developments since 1980 suggest that the Golden Age of the welfare
state has come to an end, there are differences of opinion about the extent and
overall effects of these changes. The extent to which the antiwelfarist ideology of
the radical right has been adopted varies considerably. Similarly, the extent to
which state welfare has been retrenched varies from country to country. While
some countries have experienced significant retrenchments in social provisions,
only minor modifications have been introduced in others. In some cases, such as
the developing countries, these changes have been largely imposed by external
agencies or dictated by economic difficulties. In other countries, the election of
radical right governments has resulted in significant alterations to previously
institutionalized approaches to state welfare. Nor is the process of change at an
end. As was noted earlier, state welfare programs are currently the subject of
contentious debates in Canada and several European countries.
The events of recent years have been influenced not only by economic, political,
and ideological forces but also by normative theories about state welfare. These
theories have been used to formalize ideologically inspired debates about the role
of governments in social welfare. They have also been used to interpret the
changing social and economic realities that governments have faced as they have
attempted to provide a variety of services for their citizens. These theories have
also been used to provide a conceptual basis for alternative forms of provision.
Most of these theories come from writers on the political right in the United States.
However, as was noted in the last chapter, Marxist theories have also been
formulated to explain the crisis in state welfare. Both types of theories will be
examined in the following section.
NORMATIVE INTERPRETATIONS,
SOCIAL CHANGE, AND STATE WELFARE
The changes in state welfare that have taken place in recent years were the result
of economic, demographic, and social changes. They were also fostered by the
popularization of ideological beliefs by radical right political movements about
the role of the state in human welfare. These ideological beliefs have their roots
in themes that have been institutionalized in Western political and social thought
for centuries, but they also draw on the more recent writings of social scientists
who formulated normative theories about the best way of promoting people's
welfare.
As was noted earlier, radical right leaders effectively combined several well-
established ideological themes in their campaigns to win office. Economic indi
vidualism and antistatism were melded with traditionalism and a dislike of 1960s
style permissiveness that leaders like Mrs. Thatcher blamed for Britain's social
ills. As she put it, "We are reaping what was sown in the 1960s when fashionable
theories and permissive claptrap set the scene for a society in which the old virtues
of discipline and self-restraint were denigrated" (quoted in Midgley, 1991, pp. 16-17).
Populist sentiments were also exploited, but unlike previous periods of populist
fervor when big business served as the focus of popular discontent, the state was
now presented as the cause of the nation's social ills. President Reagan's famous
statement that government was the cause of America's problems and not the
solution to these problems has been widely accepted as factual. It was the effective
fusing of individualist, populist, and traditionalist themes, combined with the
effective statecraft of radical right leaders, that ensured electoral success.
In addition to drawing on these themes, radical right leaders made extensive use
of the ideas of economic individualists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton
Friedman to argue for a sizable decrease in state involvement in social welfare.
Both writers strongly opposed state intervention in social welfare except on a
limited residualist basis. Hayek's (1944) critique of statism on the grounds that it
diminishes individual liberty and leads ultimately to serfdom was particularly
appealing to Mrs. Thatcher, and Friedman's (1962) apologetic for unrestrained
capitalism had previously attracted the attention of the right wing of the Republi
can Party in the United States. Friedman advised Barry Goldwater's unsuccessful
presidential campaign in the 1960s. His ideas also inspired various economic
individualist prescriptions such as monetarism, supply-side economics, and public
choice. By the time of President Reagan's election, Friedman's position as the

godfather of radical right economics was secure.
The individualist critique of statism reflected the findings of several economic
analyses that claimed that high government social expenditures were harming the
economy. The welfare state had reached the point of economic overload in the
sense that it could not continue to increase social expenditures without seriously
undermining the economy. Some studies of the deleterious effects of social
spending were referred to in the last chapter. The works of Robert Bacon and Walter
Eltis (1976) in Britain and Martin Feldstein (1974) in the United States are
particularly relevant and are accepted in right-wing circles as providing a convinc
ing critique of government social welfare spending and its allegedly deleterious
effect on economic growth. Although several careful economic studies cast doubt
on these claims, there is widespread agreement in public policy and government
circles today that state welfare spending in the industrial nations has reached its
limits and that further growth cannot be sustained.
Concerns about economic overload were accompanied by disquiet about politi
cal overload. It was argued that the Western industrial welfare states had created
political systems that had rendered them ungovernable (Buchanan & Wagner,
1977; Crozier, Huntington, & Watanuki, 1975). By providing generous social
services to their citizens, and by using these services to secure political support,
politicians had foolishly increased people's expectations and demands on govern
ment. At the same time, politicians were powerless to curb these demands because
they depended on electoral support if they were to continue in office. The problem
was exacerbated by the growth of organized political lobbies representing sectional
interests. Trade union militancy was particularly damaging as workers engaged in
industrial action at the slightest pretext or used strikes to increase their incomes or
benefits without commensurate increases in productivity. The result was a decline
in authority, a disdain for the traditional ideals of representative democracy, and a
potential breakdown in the democratic political system.
A similar critique came from the public choice school (Buchanan & Tullock,
1962; Niskanan, 1971), which argued that politicians and government bureaucrats
are motivated by self-interest. Despite claiming to be acting in the best interests
of citizens, they seek to maximize their own self-interests. They support the
expansion of the welfare state because this increases their power and control over
resources. In the case of politicians, it increases their electoral prospects. If
particular policies serve their interests, they will support these policies even if they
know that they bring few economic and social benefits to society. It is for this
reason that government waste and inefficiency is so rampant. The only prospect
of curtailing waste is to reduce the monopolistic power of government through
privatizing services or subjecting government agencies to vigorous competition.
Although economic individualism formed the core of the normative critique of
state welfare, the work of writers who had been influenced by traditionalism and
populism was also relevant. In the United States, neo-conservative writers such as
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and William Buckley agree with the economic
individualist critique of the welfare state, but they are less concerned with eco
nomic issues than with the rise of modernity and permissiveness (Midgley, 1992b).
Calling for a return to traditional values, they castigate the institutionalization of
permissiveness in American society. The hedonistic pursuit of pleasure and self
Social Change and the Future of State Welfare 14 7
interest had weakened social obligations. They believe that many people feel no
loyalty to the wider community and the nation. Order had declined and the core
institutions of society had been weakened. The welfare state has exacerbated the
problem by undermining the values of responsibility and self-help.
The ideas filtered into attacks on state welfare by radical right social policy
writers such as George Gilder (1981), Charles Murray (1984), and Michael Novak
(1987). These writers claim that government intervention in social affairs under
mines the traditional family, encourages the emergence of the underclass, and
fosters welfare dependency. The idea that social programs have fostered the
disintegration of the traditional family was widely accepted in both Britain and the
United States, and policies that will revitalize the nuclear family are widely
advocated. However, the rhetoric attending declining family values has not been
accompanied by substantive policy action. On the one hand, the idea that income
support programs were undermining the family and individual responsibility did
result in policy reform. In the United States, the 1988 Family Support Act imposed
new requirements on welfare recipients. This development gave expression to
Lawrence Mead's (1986) reconceptualization of Marshall's theory of citizenship.
The benefits of citizenship, Mead argues, are not unconditional but involve
reciprocity. If needy people are to be provided with social assistance, they should
be expected to reciprocate by paying child support, seeking work, and ensuring
that their children attend school. These ideas have since been widely incorporated
into the welfare reform programs introduced in the United States.
Neo-conservative ideas were also compatible with the rise of the New Christian
Right. In the United States, the religious right attacked the welfare state as an
un-Christian institution (Midgley, 1990b). Their critique of state welfare has not
only focused on the allegedly negative impact of these programs on the family but
on the traditional role of the church in providing for those in need. In the 1980s,
the religious right proposed that government income programs be transferred to
the churches and that government pay for these services. However, this proposal
was not accepted by the Reagan administration. Other social policy proposals by
Christian fundamentalists were not adopted either. Nevertheless, conservative
political leaders in the United States have continued to court religious fundamen
talist groups. The Republican victory in the U.S. Congress in 1994 owes much to
the influence of these groups. They continue to campaign for the abolition of
abortion and state welfare programs, which they believe have undermined the
country's Christian character.
While normative theories dealing with the crisis in state welfare have come
largely from scholars on the political right, Marxist theories have also been used
to interpret recent events. These theories are based on the idea that the welfare state
is a product of contradictory social forces and that it cannot be sustained over the
long term. The crisis in state welfare is an inevitable result of the inability to
reconcile these opposing forces. As was shown in the last chapter, this argument
has been stated most succinctly by James O'Connor (1973), whose theory of the
fiscal crisis of the state predicted the collapse of welfare capitalism. However,
analyses of the problems of welfare capitalism have also come from critical
theorists such as Jiirgen Habermas (1976) and Claus Offe (1984) and from social
democratic writers who recognize the difficulties of reconciling the competing
demands of capitalist interests with those of human welfare.
1-18 THE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
Although the critical theories of Habermas are complex and obscure and cannot
be easily summarized, his analysis of the forces that characterize Western industrial
societies has been widely discussed. Unlike the functionalist writers who focus on
the integrative forces operating in modern societies, Habermas focuses on the
forces that create tensions and contradictions. Habermas does not view Western
capitalist societies as well-regulated systems but emphasizes their tendency to
experience crises. Unlike O'Connor, who was primarily concerned with crisis
arising from the state's contradictory role in maintaining and supporting the
capitalist system, Habermas identifies crisis tendencies within the different sectors
of society. Crises arise in the economy, the polity, and in the sociocultural sphere.
Economic crises arise when the economy cannot fulfill its production require
ments. Political crises arise when the state engages in unpopular and irrational acts.
This creates a rationality crisis and, when popular support for government fades,
results in a legitimation crisis. When people's values and beliefs are weakened, a
motivational crisis occurs. These different crises are not, Habermas argues, con
tained within the different sectors but spill over, creating ripple effects throughout
the whole social system.
Habermas suggests that the economic difficulties experienced by the Western
industrial countries in the 1970s led to attempts by the state to manage capitalist
production more effectively. However, as the state failed to resolve the crisis of
capitalist production, a motivational crisis in which people no longer have faith in
government and in traditional beliefs has emerged. This has resulted in a major
legitimation crisis that threatens the stability of Western capitalism. The rise of
new political movements giving expression to popular discontent is a symptom of
the crisis, and a form of adjustment to a disintegrating social system.
The pessimism in Habermas's work reflects the earlier pessimism of Theodore
Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1944), the founders of critical theory in the years
before World War II. This pessimism has also provided a theoretical basis for
several social policy writers who believe that there is a fundamental crisis of the
welfare state. Their ideas will be discussed later in this chapter when different
interpretations of recent events are examined.
Offe (1984) is another critical theorist who has analyzed the crisis tendencies in
the Western industrial countries. Unlike Habermas, Offe focuses directly on issues
of state welfare. As was shown in the last chapter, Offe believe that the welfare
state is an institutionalized response to the inherent contradictions of capitalism.
However, its attempts to manage these contradictions cannot be sustained indefi
nitely, and ultimately, as they spread to the administrative and sociocultural
spheres, a major crisis erupts.
Subsequently, Offe (1987) developed these ideas by linking an analysis of the
crisis tendencies of capitalism to the theory of disorganized capitalism. The
welfare state was not only experiencing a crisis because of deep fiscal problems
but because the very nature of capitalism was changing. The welfare state origi
nally emerged within the context of a particular type of capitalism characterized
by manufacturing industry, the massification of labor, and Fordist approaches to
production. With deindustrialization, this highly organized form of capitalism is
giving way to a post-Fordist era in which organized labor plays a diminished role
and in which new technologies have replaced mass production (Lash & Urry,
1987). In this situation, the welfare state is unable to sustain its political support,
and as the crisis deepens, it will eventually collapse.
Social democratic and centrist liberal writers who believe that the welfare state
involves a historic compromise between capitalism and communism have also
expressed doubts about the future of government social intervention. As was noted
earlier, writers such as Robert Pinker (1979) believe that the welfare state is a
unique social formation in which economic and social considerations are harmo
nized to ensure the well-being of the population. The idea that the welfare state
represents a "middle way" between the destructive forces of capitalist production
and the oppressive intrusion of state socialism has been very appealing, but there
is doubt as to whether the middle way can be sustained. As will be shown in the
next section, this question is now being widely debated in social policy circles.
T H E F U T U R E O F STATE WELFARE
Social scientists who have studied social welfare over the past 15 years have
offered very different interpretations of the events that have taken place. Some are
extremely pessimistic, claiming that the welfare state has been subjected to a major
ideological attack and that it is now in serious trouble. Some even believe that the
very basis of collective responsibility in social welfare has been destroyed. Others
are more sanguine, arguing that only minor, corrective modifications have been
introduced. Social expenditures, they believe, were out of control and needed to
be restricted if a serious economic crisis was to be averted. Others believe that a
significant restructuring in social welfare has occurred. This restructuring has
resulted in a modification of the role of the state in social welfare. While it was
previously believed that the state was the most effective provider of social welfare
and that it should have a monopoly over social provisions, this idea has proved to
be unworkable. The changes that have taken place in recent years amount to a
realignment of social welfare approaches in which the role of the state will be
retrenched without causing great hardship. The dominance of statism will be ended
and replaced with a more pluralistic approach.
These very different interpretations of the events of the past decade provide a
basis for speculation about the future of state welfare in the modern world.
Although social scientists have in the past proved to be notoriously inaccurate
about predicting future events, they have not desisted from attempting to engage
in forecasts of this kind. This is equally true of social scientists working in the field
of social policy. As will be shown, these social scientists have made very different
predictions about the future of state welfare.
The Pessimists: Responding to the Crisis
In the wake of the antiwelfarist policies and programmatic retrenchments of the

Reagan and Thatcher governments, many social policy analysts invoked the
rhetoric of crisis to denote the changes that were taking place. Writing about the
United States, the respected Harvard sociologist Theda Skocpol (1987) spoke
about the "present crisis" in America's welfare state. The country, she claimed, was
in the midst of a watershed period in public social provision. In her account of the
history of the British welfare state, Pat Thane (1982) referred to the "critical
assault" being perpetrated on government social programs, which she noted was
the first determined attempt to retrench state welfare since World War I. In his
recent account of developments in Germany, Michael Wilson (1993) also portrayed
the German welfare system as being in a state of crisis. However, perhaps the best
known use the notion of crisis comes from Mishra's (1984) influential book The
Welfare Stale in Crisis. In this book, Mishra reviewed events of the 1970s and
early 1980s in the light of theoretical accounts of the problems of state welfare.
He concludes that throughout the industrialized West, the welfare state is in
"disarray."
The use of the concept of crisis by these and other authors is not only a reaction
to the ideological fervor of the radical right but a reflection of the influence of
Marxist ideas about the crisis tendencies of welfare capitalism. O'Connor's (1973)
analysis and the theoretical work of Habermas were not only prescient but intel
lectually stimulating. Their ideas framed the discussion and facilitated the use of
the concept of crisis in social policy analysis. However, while some writers used
the notion of crisis in the Marxist sense to explicate the contradictions of capitalism •
and the inability of the state to manage these contradictions, most used the term
loosely to dramatize the changes taking place. In many cases, the use of the crisis
concept in the social policy literature focused on ideological rather than structural
factors.
For example, Frances Piven and Richard Cloward (1982) interpret the changes
introduced by President Reagan in the United States as an ideological "class war"
directed by the ruling capitalist elite and their political agents against ordinary
people. Similar accounts are provided by Barbara Ehrenreich (1987) and Mimi
Abramovitz (1992). These writers contend that the ideological attack on state
welfare is motivated by the insatiable profit motives of predatory capitalists who
seek to increase their wealth at the expense of the welfare of others. Concerned
about declining profits, economic difficulties, and the power of the labor unions,
these elites have exploited popular concerns about unemployment, inflation, and
the economic difficulties to reverse the gains of the New Deal. Their attack has
been vicious and coercive and designed to neutralize all sources of opposition.
Right-wing intellectuals were willing collaborators in the radical right's hegemonic
project and provided the ideas that fueled the antiwelfarist attack. Similar ideas
characterize accounts of social policy developments in Britain and other countries
(Glennerster & Midgley, 1991; Krieger, 1987).
These writers generally agree that the attack on the welfare state shattered the
postwar welfare consensus. Abramovitz (1992) argues that the Reagan era de
stroyed the accords that were forged during the decades following the New Deal.
Accords between management and labor, between the races, and between men and
women were dismantled. Because these accords had a progressive impact, they
threatened vested interests and were targeted by the radical right. Undoing these
accords has been an integral element of the attack on the welfare state. A similar
interpretation is provided by Krieger (1987), who concludes that the welfare
consensus has been fractured by a massive rollback of the welfare state. The
consensus politics that characterized the "Keynesian welfare state" have been
abolished. The result has been the destruction of the welfare state and its replace
ment with a set of disconnected welfare provisions.
These accounts are generally pessimistic about the future of state welfare. They
suggest that the attack on government welfare programs has not only been uncom
promising but successful. However, these writers do not rule out the possibility
that the damage inflicted on the welfare state can be reversed. For example, Piven
and Cloward (1982) believe that democratic opposition to capitalism cannot, in
the long run, be extinguished. While democratic forces have been suppressed, they
have not been obliterated. Noting that the welfare state has shown a remarkable
durability and a high degree of public support, they believe that the resurgence of
democratic forces offers the prospect that collective provision for welfare will be
revived. As they put it, "We think many different groups will join in resisting and
that they will prevail" (p. xi). Similar views are expressed by Gough (1979), who
believes that the best hope for the future lies in the mobilization of popular
movements that can oppose the radical right and reverse recent retrenchments.
Abramovitz (1992, 1996) believes that women welfare recipients can effectively
mobilize with the support of other progressive elements to effectively oppose the
attack on the welfare state. Ehrenreich (1987) takes a similar view but calls for an
expanded vision of what a just welfare state would comprise. A vision of this kind
is needed if ordinary people are to mobilize around state welfare. It is perhaps
ironic that Marxist writers who had previously denigrated state welfare on various
grounds should now be advocating for its survival. Piven and Cloward's defense
of state welfare is particularly surprising since they had earlier attacked govern
ment social programs as a mechanism for oppressive social control. However, they
have since conceded that their analysis of the control functions of state welfare
applied to earlier periods of history and "represents a characterization truer of the
past than the future" (Piven & Cloward, 1982, p. 89).
Other writers are not remotely optimistic about the future of state welfare.
Krieger (1987) believes that social welfare will become increasingly residual and
that a coercive Poor Law approach will be recreated. Joseph Davey (1995)
envisages the rise of a police state as an integral part of the new social contract
that will emerge in the United States in the wake of the collapse of the welfare
state. As social conditions deteriorate, civil disorder will increase, prompting an
even more coercive response. The extraordinary increase in the prison population,
despite a fall in the crime rate in recent years, offers evidence for the emergence
of a new regime of this kind.
Little attention has focused on the impact of radical right ideology on social
welfare in the developing countries. However, as was shown in Chapter 4 of this
book, many writers on Third World social policy are deeply pessimistic about the
future of state welfare particularly in view of the damage caused by structural
adjustment programs. Edwell Kaseke (1991) notes that these programs have
negatively affected social conditions throughout the region. In Ghana, incomes
have fallen below 1974 levels, and in Zimbabwe, stagnating earnings and retrench
ment in the public sector have caused great hardship. Expenditure cuts in the social
services have reduced access to much needed social services, and people's welfare
has suffered. Kaseke concludes that there is little evidence that structural adjust
ment programs have been successful either in economic or social terms. In this
situation, the future for state welfare is bleak. Kevin Watkins (1995) is equally
pessimistic in his assessment of the impact of these programs.
The Optimists: Maturity and

Irreversibility in State Welfare
Many social policy writers reject the view that the welfare state has been
irreparably damaged by events of recent years. While they do not deny that these
events have resulted in significant changes, they do not believe that there is a
"crisis" in welfare. Many are skeptical about the use of the notion of crisis to
describe the changes that have taken place. Rudolph Klein and Michael O'Higgins
(1985) question the frequent use of the concept of crisis in the literature, which
they contend merely provokes unnecessary fears. Reviewing the international
evidence, Jens Alber (1988, p. 200) concludes definitively that "the concept of a
welfare state crisis is neither necessary nor fruitful." Similarly, Pierson (1991)
believes that the evidence for a crisis of the welfare state is "extremely thin," and
Ken Judge (1987) concludes with reference to Britain that the so-called crisis of
the welfare state has been greatly exaggerated.
While optimists agree that the welfare state has not been destroyed, they differ
in their analyses of the nature of the changes that have taken place. Some, such as
Heclo (1981), argue that the so-called crisis of the welfare state did not amount to
a period of retrenchment but to a stabilization in social spending. Heclo notes that
the governments of the Western industrial nations were increasing their social
spending at levels that exceeded economic growth rates and that this had produced
an excessively high burden of taxation and resulted in undesirable budget deficits.
The changes introduced during the 1980s did not amount to a concerted attack on
the welfare state but rather in a corrective that put a much needed brake on social
spending. The welfare state has now reached the final stage of its development and,
as a mature institution, has reached the limits of its growth.
Examining social expenditure trends in Britain, Julian Le Grand (1990) reaches
a similar conclusion. Although government social provisions are faced with eco
nomic and fiscal difficulties as well as ideological attacks, they remain remarkably
robust. As was shown earlier in this chapter, social spending was stabilized,
fluctuating within a relatively narrow range during the late 1970s and 1980s. The
British welfare state, he argues, is here to stay.
Few social policy writers have applied these ideas to the developing countries.
One exception is a study by Viviane Brachet-Marquez and Margaret Sharrard
Sherraden (1994) of the fate of health and food policies in Mexico during periods
of economic austerity. Despite serious economic difficulties and antiwelfarist
rhetoric, these programs were not eliminated. Indeed, successive governments
sought to preserve these programs because of their important political functions.
On the other hand, Silvia Borzutsky's (1991) study of the privatization of social
security in Chile is less optimistic. The changes that have been introduced have,
she believes, had very negative social consequences.
Some optimistic accounts of recent changes in state welfare are more guarded,
pointing out that while the aims of the radical right were not achieved, their policies
have had a significant impact. Reviewing developments in six countries, Howard
Glennerster (1991) concludes that while the notion of a crisis in welfare is not
supported by the evidence, changes in state welfare provision has indeed taken
place. Nevertheless, he believes that there has been a significant retrenchment in
public provisions and that inequality in many countries has worsened. Above all,
the agenda has changed and the debate around social welfare is now framed largely
by the radical right. Similarly, Patricia Ruggles and Michael O'Higgins (1987) note
that the radical right did not achieve its goals through direct expenditure reductions
but rather through indirect impacts. These include the budget deficit in the United
States, programmatic changes to particular provisions, and cost-containment poli
cies that will negatively affect lower-income groups. Another impact is the way
the debate around social welfare issues has been changed.
The belief that state welfare has been resistant to the attacks of the radical right
has led some social policy analysts to conclude that state intervention in social
welfare is irreversible. As Mishra (1990) points out, proponents of the irre
versibility hypothesis do not simply attribute the radical right's failure to destroy
the welfare state to a lack of ideological determination, but argue that there are
sound economic, sociological, and political reasons why state welfare will remain
a prominent feature of Western industrial societies in the future. Le Grand (1990)
notes that demographic changes have created an aging population with needs that
can only be met through collective action. Similarly, economic realities suggest
that unemployment, and thus state income support programs, will be a feature of
the industrial economies for many years to come. At the political level, policy
inertia among political and bureaucratic elites also inhibits radical change. Writing
about Sweden, Sven Olsson (1993) believes that recent talk of a crisis in Swedish
social democracy is unjustified. He notes that there have been previous periods of
so-called crisis that have not resulted in major changes to the country's welfare
state. State welfare programs, he believes, will remain intact because they are
deeply institutionalized and widely supported by the electorate. Alber (1988)
reached a similar conclusion, making the additional point that electoral support for
state welfare remains strong because so many ordinary people receive social
benefits of one kind or another.
Optimistic accounts of the future of state welfare suggest that despite recent
changes, governments will continue to be major providers of social welfare. Those
who believe that the welfare state is now a mature institution envisage a steady
state future for government social programs. This belief is shared by proponents
of the irreversibility hypothesis, who claim that government social programs serve
important social functions or are so institutionalized that they cannot be disman
tled. However, as Mishra (1990) argues, the optimists have focused narrowly on
social expenditure trends and have not fully appreciated the extent to which certain
social programs, particularly those for low-income and vulnerable groups, have
been retrenched. Nor have they paid adequate attention to the changes that have
taken place outside the narrow ambit of social services. The institutionalization of
high rates of unemployment, increases in inequality and poverty, changes in
taxation, and the extraordinary growth in conspicuous wealth are all neglected in
these accounts. There is also a danger that their focus on the short-term effects of
the Reagan and Thatcher administrations will obscure the longer-term efforts by
governments of quite different ideological views to diminish state intervention in
economic and social affairs. Recent events in Canada, France, Germany, and
elsewhere suggest that the initial attack on state welfare is indeed having longer-
term effects of this kind.
The Reconstructionists:
Advocating Welfare Pluralism
The reconstructionists are composed of a group of social policy scientists who

believe that recent events involve a restructuring of the way societies have
conventionally provided social welfare. The essential feature of this restructuring
involves a shift away from a preponderant emphasis on the role of the state in social
welfare to other welfare institutions including nonformal, voluntary, and commer
cial institutions (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989; Hadley & Hatch, 1981; Johnson, 1987;
Karger & Stoesz, 1992; Rein & Rainwater, 1986; Rose, 1986).
The reconstructionists also reject the idea that there has been a major crisis in
state welfare in recent years. However, they recognize that major programmatic
shifts are taking place. They also believe that the events of recent years involve a
welcome reemergence and institutionalization of welfare pluralism. These events
have reversed the trend toward state monopoly in social welfare that characterized
many countries in the postwar era. The belief that social provisions provided by
the state are the most desirable way of promoting people's welfare has been
successfully challenged.
The reconstructionists believe that enhanced welfare pluralism is not only
desirable but necessary in view of changing social, political, and economic reali
ties. The idea that the state should be the primary provider of welfare was
compatible with the era of rapid industrialization and the massification of labor,
but in a postindustrial context, new structures are needed. Welfare pluralism is
highly compatible with a post-Fordist and postmodern society. Similarly, many
reconstructionists believe that modern societies cannot continue to allocate such
huge proportions of their state budgets to social welfare activities and that other
groups in society must share the burden of welfare. This involves a higher degree
of individual responsibility, the engagement of family and other informal support
networks, a greater role for voluntary organizations, and the recognition that
commercial forms of provision will be needed. Similarly, some reconstructionists
argue that the reversal of the expansion of state welfare has positive implications
for liberty. The power of an increasingly intrusive state will be limited and people
will have greater choice and responsibility.
Many welfare pluralists believe that the state should still be actively involved
in social welfare, serving to plan, manage, and provide the resources for social
welfare activities. Writers such as Ken Judge (1987) and Neil and Barbara Gilbert
(1989) believe that government resources will still be needed to fund nonformal,
voluntary, and commercial provisions. They argue that state should play an
"enabling role" that facilitates and supports these alternative provisions. Others
believe that resources can be generated on a voluntary basis or through commercial

charges and funding mechanisms.
Irrespective of how social welfare needs are to be met, the reconstructionists are
adamant that a decline in state responsibility for social welfare will not diminish
or harm levels of welfare in society. Some believe that a shift from state welfare
will generate a new dynamism in the nonformal, voluntary, and commercial sectors
that will adequately meet people's needs. Some claim that these sectors are already
buoyant and that the emphasis placed on government social programs has dis
guised the extent to which alternative structures currently function to meet people's
needs. Reconstructionists such as Richard Rose (1986) and Arthur Gould (1993)
have used the case of Japan to support this argument. They point out that Japan
has one of the highest standards of living in the world but that its social expendi
tures are low by international standards. This is because the nonstatutory welfare
sectors play a vital role in the production of welfare. Gould suggests that the
Japanese model is instructive and that the Japanese experience will in the future
diffuse to other countries, resulting in a global "Japanization" of welfare.
Although there is no doubt that welfare pluralism will become increasingly
institutionalized in the future, it is not clear that people's welfare will remain
unaffected by the move away from state responsibility. The role of government in
generating the resources needed to provide social services has been a crucial factor
in the significant social improvements that have taken place throughout the world.
It is not clear that adequate state resources will continue to be available to fund the
activities of voluntary and commercial organizations that will form the primary
agents of service delivery in the new, reconstructed welfare "society" advocated
by welfare pluralists. It is doubtful that the voluntary sector can adequately meet
its obligations without government support. It is also doubtful that commercial
forms of provision will provide an effective alternative. The problems of commer
cial provision have been adequately demonstrated in the literature of social policy
for many years (Gilbert & Gilbert, 1989; Titmuss, 1971, 1974).
While reconstructionists point out that social expenditures in the industrial
nations have been maintained despite the efforts of the radical right, there is no
guarantee that current levels of expenditure will be sustained. The retrenchments
announced by the French government in December 1995, which led to widespread
strikes in Paris, and the more recent cutbacks imposed in Germany by Chancellor
Kohl's government, do not give grounds for optimism. The experiences of devel
oping countries are also instructive. Human suffering in many Third World coun
tries remains an appalling reality because of the inability of nonstatutory welfare
institutions to replace the state as a major provider of social welfare. In addition,
the continued ideological attack on state welfare is likely to perpetuate the process
of delegitimization of state welfare that began in the 1980s. The antiwelfarist
rantings of Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress are indicative of the perpetu
ation of this ideological offensive and should be taken seriously.
In this situation, it is clear that a progressive agenda for social welfare needs
new ideas. Because the radical right has framed the debate, proponents of collec
tive forms of social provision have for too long been forced into a defensive
position. The reconstruction of the welfare state should not be based on a retreat
into accepting increased privatization and budgetary retrenchment on the basis of
a vaguely defined pluralist position, but rather on the proactive formulation of a

new normative basis for state intervention.
A step in this direction is the articulation of the developmental approach to social
welfare (Midgley, 1995). As was noted earlier in this book, this approach is based
on the premise that development offers the best prospect of raising standards of
living for the population as a whole. However, it requires that the economic and
social components of development be closely harmonized. This not only requires
that economic development has a positive direct impact on people's welfare but
that social programs contribute to economic development. This latter aspect, which
is sometimes known as the productivist or social investment approach in social
welfare, prefers social programs that generate economic rates of return to those
that consume scarce resources on remedial or maintenance-oriented interventions.
The proponents of social development claim that its productivist approach offers
a credible alternative to conventional state welfare models. While this approach is
also pluralistic, it accords a major role for government in harmonizing community,
enterprise, and other activities that enhance people's welfare. More information
about the social development approach is provided in Chapter 9.
PART III
APPLIED INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL WELFARE
CHAPTER EIGHT
SOCIAL WORK IN
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
Social work is established as a profession in many parts of the world today. From
its beginnings in the industrial countries about a century ago, it has grown rapidly
and is now recognized in many nations in Africa, Asia, and Central and South
America. Schools of social work have been created throughout the world, and
social workers are employed in both government and voluntary organizations in
many different countries. Social workers are represented by professional associa
tions at the national, regional, and international levels. Social work's professional
interests are represented at the international level by the International Federation
of Social Workers (IFSW) and the International Association of Schools of Social
Work (IASSW).
Social work's professional development has been accompanied by more fre
quent international exchanges between social workers. The international profes
sional associations hold regular meetings, and social workers have many more
opportunities to share ideas and experiences. In addition, they visit their colleagues
in other nations to learn about trends in social work education and practice in other
countries. Despite these developments, few would claim that social work is
adequately engaged in international activities or that social workers have sufficient
information about professional development in other parts of the world. Most are
still poorly informed about social work education and practice in other nations.
Social workers need to be more involved in international social welfare. As
James Midgley (1992b) argues, there are advantages in doing so. By adopting a
global perspective, social workers can enhance their theoretical and practical
knowledge. In addition, international collaboration can promote professional
159
160 APPLIED INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
development and strengthen social work's ability to respond more effectively to

social problems both at the national and international levels. Fortunately, more
social workers are now involved in the field, and international activities have
indeed increased.
This chapter provides an overview of social work in international context. It
defines social work, traces its historical development, and examines the way social
work spread from Europe and North America to many other countries. It discusses
social work education and describes the features of social work practice in different
parts of the world. It also discusses a few key issues in international social work:
social work's involvement in social justice, the issue of profession identity, and
the nature of international exchanges in social work. By providing this brief
overview, the chapter hopes to enhance awareness of the way social work has
enhanced its involvement at the international level.
The term international social work is frequently used to connote social work's
involvement in international activities. Although the term was originally used to
refer to social work's role in the international relief and development activities
provided by the Red Cross and the United Nations (Friedlander, 1955,
1975), it has now been broadened to include a variety of international activities
in which social workers are engaged. It is also used to describe the profession's
international development, comparisons between social work education and prac
tice in different countries, and the exchanges that take place between social
workers at the international level. It is with these diverse activities that this chapter
is concerned.
THE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL

SOCIAL WORK
As was shown in Chapter 1 of this book, social work is one of several approaches
for promoting people's welfare. However, unlike the other approaches, social work
is characterized by the intervention of professionally trained personnel who apply
knowledge and skills to enhance human well-being. The Social Work Dictionary
(Barker, 1987) defines social work as "the professional activity of helping indi
viduals, groups or communities to enhance or restore their capacity for social
functioning and creating societal conditions favorable to this goal" (p. 154).
Although social work is engaged in various activities that enhance human
well-being, it is primarily concerned with the provision of remedial services.
Since its inception, social work has sought to treat the problems of individual and
families, and it is usually with regard to remedial interventions that the profession
is known. Social workers are involved in the treatment of a wide variety of social
problems including child neglect and abuse, mental illness, homelessness, drug
and alcohol dependence, marital and family discord, and juvenile delinquency.
In addition to its primary concern with remedial social welfare, social work has
historically dealt with poor people. In other words, the social problems social
workers treat are usually the problems of the poor. This is not to deny that social
workers also deal with middle-class or higher-income clients, but traditionally,
they have served poor people. In the United States, where private practice is well
established, social workers are more likely to serve middle-class clients. The
growth of commercial social services in the United States has also increased social
work's involvement with middle- and higher-income clients. However, in many
other countries, social work continues to focus on the poor.
While social work is primarily involved in remedial activities, it is also engaged
in programs that seek to prevent social problems from occurring. Examples include
youth clubs that are designed to help children and young people develop social
skills and deal more effectively with negative peer pressures. In this way, social
workers hope to prevent delinquency, teen pregnancy, drug use, and other harmful
behaviors. Although social group work is the primary method used by social workers
to discharge their preventive function, community work is also employed for this
purpose. By mobilizing local people to address their social needs, the profession
seeks to enhance solidarity and prevent the deterioration of social conditions.
Social workers are also engaged in professional activities that seek to promote
human well-being. They have extensive experience of community practice that
involves organizing and mobilizing people to improve local social conditions.
Community work has traditionally been concerned with raising the consciousness
of local people and helping them to become politically organized to lobby for
improved services and programs. In developing countries, these activities have
been augmented by an involvement in developmental programs that seek to
improve people's welfare through economic projects that raise incomes and stand
ards of living. Social workers are also engaged in administration and planning in
both voluntary and government agencies. Although relatively few social workers
are involved in these activities, they are able to exert their influence to promote
social well-being at the level of policy formulation.
Social work has evolved different methods of practice to implement its remedial,
preventive, and promotive functions. These methods, which have already been
mentioned, are known as casework (or clinical social work as it is known in the
United States), group work, and community work. Community work is also known
as community organization or community practice. In addition, administration and
planning are now also recognized as methods of professional social work. Some
social work writers also regard research as a method of social work. While it is
indeed appropriate that social workers engage in administration, planning, and
research, it is doubtful that these activities are methods in the way that casework,
group work, and community organization are recognized as unique forms of social
work intervention.
Social work methods are applied in a variety of settings known as fields of
practice. The fields of practice are related to particular social problems or groups
of clients. Often, social workers are employed in specialized agencies that engage
in these different fields of practice. The major fields of practice include child
welfare, mental health, medical social work, school social work, probation and
correctional social work, income maintenance, and youth social work. Although
social work has evolved around different methods and fields of practice, social
workers have sought to identify common or generic principles that pervade all
social work interventions and provide the profession with a distinctive identity and
unity that transcends the application of social work knowledge and skills to
particular settings.
16? APPLIED INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
storied Development
The different methods of social work evolved independently of each other

during the latter decades of the past century and the early decades of this century.
Social work emerged out of philanthropic activities directed at poor people living
in the slums of the rapidly industrializing cities of Europe and North America. The
most important of these philanthropies were the settlement houses and the poor
relief charities. Of the poor relief charities, the Charity Organization Society made
the most significant contribution to the articulation of social casework as a distinct
practice method. The settlement houses contributed to the emergence of social
group work and community organization. In time, these distinct practice ap
proaches were linked together and subsumed under the wider rubric of professional
practice.
While social work emerged in different European countries at about the same
time, it was primarily in the United States that it was formalized as a coherent
approach for dealing with social problems. It was also in the United States that
social work's academic and professional development was most actively pro
moted. Academic and professional social workers in the United States played an
important role in ensuring that the different practice methods were unified into the
common or generic approach that characterizes professional social work today.
Social work in Europe drew on these developments but also incorporated ideas and
practices that emerged in European nations such as Germany and the Netherlands.
The Charity Organization Society and the settlement houses contributed to the
emergence of social work in different ways. The Charity Organization Society was
critical of the practice of giving aid to anyone who claimed to be poor, and it used
women volunteers to investigate and verify the circumstances of applicants for
poor relief. These volunteers also formulated plans to rehabilitate their clients and
to ensure that they became self-sufficient. This approach not only transcended
conventional charitable activities but was believed to be based on scientific
principles. The use of scientific knowledge in social work may be traced back to
these early efforts to introduce a more systematic approach to helping the poor. In
time, charity work became known as casework, and although most caseworkers
dealt with poor people, their activities focused increasingly on the nonmaterial
needs of their clients. As theories from psychology were incorporated into social
work, social caseworkers began to focus more on the personal problems of their
clients. Instead of providing material relief, they sought to promote client adjust
ment and functioning. Casework was also applied in new fields of practice such
as child welfare, hospital social work, probation, and school welfare.
The settlements were not concerned with treatment but with neighborhood and
other activities that helped poor people improve their circumstances. Settlement
houses relied extensively on student volunteers, who ran adult education classes,
youth clubs, and recreational activities that catered to the needs of deprived people
living in the slums of European and North American cities. Settlement workers
were also engaged in community organizing. They established local committees
to engage in neighborhood improvement projects, and they sought to bring pres
sure to bear on political leaders to allocate more resources to deal with the problems
of urban poverty. Some settlement leaders, like Jane Addams of Hull House in
Chicago, were actively involved in social reform at the national level. By building
links with national leaders, she encouraged the adoption of social policies that
would address pressing social problems through government intervention.
After the first training programs for social workers were created in the early
decades of the 20th century, social work educators provided an academic basis for
these activities that were primarily vocational in character. The first professional
training schools in the United Sates were operated independently of the universi
ties but, in time, were affiliated with leading universities such as the University of
Chicago and Columbia University in New York. Today, social work education in
the United States is offered exclusively at universities.
There were similar developments in Europe. M. C. Hokenstad and Katherine
Kendall (1995) report that the world's first social work training school was not, as
is commonly believed, established in the United States but in Amsterdam in 1899.
In 1903, the Charity Organization Society collaborated with the Fabian Society to
create the first social work program in England. It later affiliated with the London
School of Economics (Woodroofe, 1962).
Social workers in the United States gave international leadership in developing
a coherent body of knowledge that formed the basis for social work practice. Most
of the leading writers in the history of social work, such as Mary Richmond, Jane
Addams, Mary Jarrett, Grace Coyle, and Robert Lane, were Americans. American
textbooks and journals were widely used in other industrial countries, particularly
Britain, where American approaches in social work were gradually adopted.
Mary Richmond's book Social Diagnosis (1918) was the first conceptual expo
sition of social work practice, and it was widely used. Richmond believed that
social work needed to develop a sound theoretical framework for its vocational
activities. If social work was to be recognized as a profession, it needed to have a
clearly articulated practice method based not only on specific procedures but on
scientific knowledge. Otherwise, social work would continue to be regarded as
little more than a charitable activity. Her book adopted many ideas from medicine
and was a successful attempt to provide the profession with a coherent, scientifi
cally based practice methodology.
Richmond's attempt to formulate a theoretical base for social work practice was
gradually superseded by the adoption of psychoanalytic theory. This development,
which took place in the 1920s and 1930s, reinforced social work's historical
commitment to therapeutic intervention. Despite the profession's involvement in
community practice, and its important role in promoting state social programs
during the New Deal in the United States, social work was increasingly viewed as
a form of psychotherapy. Many professional training schools were committed to
promoting therapeutic practice, and many placed emphasis on psychoanalysis.
Many social work teachers believed that psychoanalysis would not only deal
effectively with the emotional problems of clients but improve individual func
tioning and, if applied on a large scale, change society for the better. Although
there have been periods such as the 1960s when community-based social work was
more popular, therapeutic social work has dominated professional education and
practice in the United States. This continues to be the case today even though
psychoanalysis is no longer as popular as before.
APPLIED INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
INTERNATIONAL FEATURES
OF SOCIAL WORK
Although professional social work evolved in Europe and North America, it is now
well established in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America as well. As recent
studies (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995; Hokenstad, Khinduka, & Midgley, 1992;
Watts, Elliott, & Mayadas, 1995) have shown, social work is also spreading to
countries where the need for professional intervention was previously not recog
nized. The Eastern European countries and the member states of the former Soviet
Union are gradually adopting social work and accepting its role as a means for
enhancing people's welfare. Hokenstad and Kendall (1995) note that there is a growing
interest in social work in China where an association of social work educators was
established in 1994 and where professional education is being expanded.
Although social work has evolved into an international profession with a
distinctive body of knowledge and unique practice methods, there are differences
in the way social workers are educated in different parts of the world. Differences
in the professional roles social work plays in different countries may also be
observed. To gain a better impression of these differences, some of the key features
of social work education and practice in different parts of the world will be
identified. But first, the internationalization of social work from its early begin
nings in Europe and North America to its worldwide acceptance will be traced.
Internationalization
Social work has spread throughout the world as a result of the international
transfer of ideas and practice methods. In the mid-19th century, innovations in
Britain such as the Charity Organization Society and the settlements were adopted
in the United States. As social work evolved into an academic subject in the United
States, conceptual approaches formulated by American social workers were ex
ported to other countries. The European countries were the first to adopt American
innovations, but later, countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America
also imported American approaches.
While the evolution of social work in Europe incorporated theoretical and
practice innovations in the United States, it also drew on local experiences. In
Britain, social work remained more vocational than in the United States. Also,
unlike the United States, where the trend toward a generic approach began in the
1920s, British social work was historically characterized by distinctive practice
approaches linked to particular fields of practice. It was not until the 1960s that
the need for generic social work was recognized. This came about largely through
the efforts of Eileen Younghusband, who promoted the adoption of American social
work theory in the United Kingdom and actively encouraged the integration of
social work practice methods during the 1950s and 1960s.
As in Britain, social work in the continental European nations also lacked the
theoretical refinement of social work in the United States, but here specialized
linkages with other fields such as health care and public social service emerged.
In France, social work's historical evolution was closely related to the provision
of health services, and many French social workers practiced in health settings. In
Sweden, where state welfare has been dominant, social workers have traditionally
been employed in the public sector, and it is not surprising that they have been
extensively engaged in administration where a knowledge of law, organizational
procedure, and public service provisions is required. Social work has also been
influenced by religious charities in many continental European countries. In
Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium, social work's development owed much
to these organizations, which not only employed many professionally qualified
social workers but also promoted a sectarian approach to social work practice. In
many of these countries, social work has also been associated with the provision
of residential services. Although residential workers are usually not required to
possess the same qualifications as mainstream practitioners, they are frequently
regarded as social workers and are admitted to national professional social work
associations. Sometimes, their training and qualifications are regulated by profes
sional bodies (Cannan, Berry, & Lyons, 1992).
A major contribution to a distinctive theoretical exposition of social work in
Europe was the adoption of social pedagogy as a branch of social work practice.
In Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, social work's historical evolution was
extensively influenced by the ideas of Adolph Diestenweg, who, in the 19th
century, advocated for the training of social pedagogues who would engage in
community-based social education and social action programs in poor communi
ties. Today, social pedagogy is an important aspect in social work in these countries
and serves as a counterpart to the profession's conventional commitment to
remedial practice (Cannan et al., 1992). Although social pedagogy is similar in
many respects to community work practice, it has a stronger educational compo
nent and is not limited only to community settings. Today, social pedagogy is
practiced in youth work, residential care, and other settings.
Unlike the United States, where professional social work education was stand
ardized and incorporated within the universities, British social work education
remained fragmented and different types of qualifications offered by a variety of
educational institutions ranging from universities to community colleges evolved.
Professional education in continental Europe also evolved in an incremental way,
but apart from a few countries such as Italy where some university-level profes
sional education was introduced, social work training was established at special
ized, nonuniversity, tertiary institutions. In Germany, these institutions are known
as Fachhochschule or vocational high schools. Although many of these specialized
training institutions were established by religious or voluntary organizations, they
have since been recognized and regulated by governments. In some countries such
as Sweden, where social work education was originally provided by vocational
training institutions, these have now been incorporated into the universities.
Discussions on raising the academic level of social work have also taken place in
other European countries, and it is possible that social work may evolve into a
recognized academic field within the universities as is the case in the United States.
With the major exceptions of Poland and Yugoslavia, social work did not until
recently emerge as a profession in the former communist countries of Eastern
Europe. Although schools of social work were created in countries such as
Czechoslovakia before World War II, they were disbanded after the advent of
communism. In Poland, on the other hand, social work survived as a profession,

and by the mid-1980s, the country had 16 schools of social work. Most of them
are associated with medical schools and many of their graduates work in health
care settings (Kendall, 1986). In Yugoslavia, the government made extensive use
of social workers in the public social services, and five professional training
schools were created. These schools were similar to the German vocational high
schools. In 1972, the University of Zagreb established the country's first univer
sity-level professional training program. Since the collapse of communism, social
work has been expanding steadily in the Eastern European nations and in Russia
as well.
Although social work has grown rapidly in Africa, Asia, and Central and South
America in recent years, it is by no means a recent innovation in these countries.
The oldest school of social work in Latin America, and indeed in the developing
world as a whole, was established in Santiago, Chile in 1925 (Jimenez & Alwyn,
1992). The historical evolution of social work in the Third World was greatly
influenced by developments in Europe and North America by organizations that
actively promoted the spread of social work to the developing countries.
Among these were religious organizations that established professional training
schools to produce personnel to work in the religious charities. In time, they
expanded their role to provide a more generalist education, and many attracted
students who intended to pursue careers in nonsectarian fields. Social work schools
were created by missionaries or religious organizations in countries as diverse as
India, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe. In the Latin American countries, many nonuniver
sity schools of social work were established by the Catholic Church.
International organizations such as the United Nations and UNICEF also played
a role in introducing professional social work in the developing countries. For
example, it was on the recommendation of officials at these organizations that
professional social work education was established in Jordan and the Sudan
(Midgley, 1981). The international agencies made extensive use of Western con
sultants to assist the developing countries to create their own schools of social
work.
The governments of metropolitan countries such as Britain, France, and the
United States also encouraged the spread of social work in the Third World.
Kendall (1995) notes that the government of the United States began to support
the development of professional social work in 1939, and after World War II, it
greatly expanded technical assistance in the field. Lynne Healy (1995a) reports
that American assistance involved both the provision of consultants to developing
countries and opportunities for Third World students to study at American schools
of social work. The British and French governments also used consultants to assist
in the development of professional schools in these countries. To promote indi
genization, they provided scholarships to train social workers from these territories
to assume leadership positions in the newly created schools of social work and at
the rapidly expanding public social agencies that had been created in the Third
World.
The international growth of social work is perhaps best revealed in the expansion
of professional schools of social work around the world. In 1929, when interna
tional collaboration in social work education first began, 46 schools in ten coun
tries joined together to form the International Committee of Schools of Social
Work. The committee was the predecessor of the IASSW, and most of its founding
members came from Europe and North America (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995). In
1950, the United Nations undertook an international survey of schools of social
work, which revealed that 373 professional schools of social work had been
established in 46 countries (United Nations, 1950). Nearly 25 years later, Kendall
(1974) reported that the IASSW had 459 member schools in 66 countries: "A
tremendous growth in and development of social work education since the Second
World War can readily be seen" (p. v). By 1983, the number had increased further
to 476 member schools (Rao & Kendall, 1984). Although there are more than 1,700
professional schools of social work in more than 100 countries today (Hokenstad
& Kendall, 1995), IASSW had a membership of 433 member schools in 77 nations
(Healy, 1995a).
Global Features of Social Work Education
International reviews of social work education (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995;

Kendall, 1986; Watts et al., 1995) reveal that no universal model of social work
education has emerged. Social workers are trained at different types of institutions,
their qualifications are offered at different levels, and the content of the curriculum
varies considerably. In addition, schools of social work are faced with different
demands in different parts of the world, and there are constant pressures on
educators to respond to these demands. In Third World countries, social work faces
the challenge of preparing students to engage in activities that will promote
economic development. In the United States, educators are under pressure from
many students who express a strong preference for psychotherapeutic training. In
many European countries, where social workers are employed in the public social
services, social work programs must ensure that students have a sound knowledge
of statutory and administrative procedures. The diversity of social work education
is further increased by the emergence of new social problems and fields of practice.
As the AIDS pandemic has demanded greater social work involvement, the
professional schools have come under pressure to include more course content on
this topic.
On the other hand, there are commonalities in social work education in different
parts of the world. Most programs offer professional training at the tertiary level
either at universities or nonuniversity institutions. While there are significant
differences in the duration of training, most schools provide at least three years of
postsecondary professional education. Another common feature of social work
education is the dual emphasis that is given to classroom and field instruction.
While curriculum content may vary, social work programs around the world
require students to have both academic and practical knowledge.
While it was previously believed that the emergence of a universal model of
social work education was highly desirable, international diversity in social work
education is today respected and even encouraged. Because social work ideas and
knowledge diffused widely from the United States to many other parts of the world
in the years after World War II, it was widely assumed that social work would
become highly standardized. In the 1960s and 1970s, as the dominance of Ameri
can models were questioned, social work educators in different parts of the world
asserted their national preferences and actively promoted the indigenization of
professional education. This trend was supported by the IASSW, which has
promoted diversity among its members.
Social Work Education in

the Industrial Notions
As was noted earlier, social work first emerged as a professional activity i n the
industrial nations, and it is not surprising that professional social work education
is well established in these countries. The United States leads the world in having
the largest number of professional training schools. Professional education is
offered at both the baccalaureate and master’s levels, and all accredited training
schools are located within universities. Michael Frumkin and Gary Lloyd (1995)
report that there were over 300 baccalaureate and 117 master’s programs in the
country in 1993 with a combined enrollment of over 43,000 students. In addition,
53 schools offered a doctorate in social work with an enrollment of nearly 2,000
students. In addition to its numeric leadership, American schools of social work
enjoy a high degree of academic recognition, and their commitment to research
and scholarship is strong. Consequently, they lead the world in producing the
publications on which the diffusion of social work knowledge depends.
While social work education in the United States is highly standardized, there
are great variations in the European countries. Although there has been a trend
toward incorporation into the universities, most social work training still takes
place in independent vocational schools operated by governments, religious bod-
ies, or voluntary organizations. Usually, three or four years of study are required,
and graduates are awarded a diploma or title as social worker. This pattern is well
established in European countries such as Austria, France, Germany, and the
Netherlands. As was noted earlier, the German Fuchhochschule or vocational high
schools are typical of this pattern. However, there is a trend toward incorporating
social work education into the universities, and several continental European
countries now offer university-level professional training. In Britain, on the other
hand, the situation remains mixed, and social work education continues to be
provided by different types of institutions. In an attempt to standardize social work
training, the British Central Council on Education and Training in Social Work
(CCETSW) approves courses, and graduates receive the Diploma in Social Work
(DipSW) irrespective of the level of training they receive. Like the United States,
several British universities offer doctoral education in social work. In recent years,
attempts have been made to enhance standardization between the countries of the
European Union. In keeping with the European Union’s efforts to promote Euro-
pean integration, equivalency determination reviews are being undertaken, and it
is likely that greater standardization will eventually emerge (Brauns & Kramer,
1991).
Social work education is more standardized in industrial countries such as
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Basic professional education in these coun-
tries takes place at the baccalaureate level, and graduate work is largely devoted
to advanced study in the field. These countries also provide opportunities for
doctoral study. Social work education is also well developed in Israel where
university-level baccalaureate training is used to provide a basic professional
degree. On the other hand, there is a lack of standardization in social work
education in Japan where training is offered at community colleges, undergraduate
programs, and at the graduate level.
Social Work Education in

the Former Communist Countries
Social work education is expanding rapidly in the former communist countries

of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union both at universities and at specialized
nonuniversity tertiary institutions. Previously, social work education had been
limited largely to Poland and Yugoslavia. Social work training programs have been
created at universities in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia.
The first doctoral degree in social work in the region has been established in Hungary.
In addition, Charles Guzetta (1995) reports that efforts are currently under way to
introduce professional social work education in Albania and Bulgaria.
Professional training is being provided by a variety of institutions ranging from
universities to private, specialized training schools in Russia and the other member
nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Guzetta (1995) reports that
the first steps toward the introduction of social work education were taken by the
Moscow Academy of Pedagogical Sciences during the Gorbachev era when it
added social work to its list of approved academic subjects. Although the academy
was originally influenced by the European social pedagogy model, it soon broad
ened its conception of social work to include other social work practice approaches
as well. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many new initiatives have been
launched and social work training opportunities have proliferated. By the early
1990, more than 30 social work training programs had been established in the
region (Guzetta, 1995). However, social work education is not standardized, and
it is likely that training approaches will remain fragmented for some time to come
(Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995).
Socio/ Work Education in

the Third World
Although there are great variations in social work education in the Third World,
commonalities can be identified among countries with similar historical and
cultural features. For example, there are similarities in social work education in
the Latin American countries. Although many schools of social work in Latin
America were established as nonuniversity institutions, most have affiliated with
the universities and most offer a four- or five-year degree or licenciado in social
work. The major exception is Mexico where the great majority of the country's
social work programs are nonuniversity institutions. Nevertheless, Mexico has 20
university-level schools of social work, which is a sizable number for any devel
oping country. Brazil also has a large number of social work programs, and here
graduate study is well developed.
In Africa, social work education in the English-speaking countries differs from

that provided in the French-speaking countries. In the Francophone countries,
social work education is offered at nonuniversity schools, and as in metropolitan
France, there are strong links with health care. Indeed, many social work programs
are linked to schools of nursing where students share a basic training in health care
provisions. In the Anglophone countries, social work training is offered at both
university and nonuniversity institutions. A number of Anglophone African nations
including Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia offer univer
sity-level social work education, and the bachelor's degree is usually used for this
purpose. Some countries such as Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa have a sizable
number of university programs, and in some cases, such as South Africa, doctoral
education is offered. Most of the nonuniversity institutions are concerned with
preparing students to work in government community development programs.
The situation in Asia is more complicated although here university-level insti
tutions play an important role in providing professional training. American influ
ences can be readily detected in Asian social work education, particularly in India
and the Philippines where the American preference for university-level training
was adopted. Social work education in India is highly standardized around the
master's degree, which is regarded as the basic professional qualification. How
ever, in recent years, there has been an expansion of undergraduate education
(Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995). While India, the Philippines, and Korea have
numerous schools of social work, countries such as Singapore, Thailand, and
Papua New Guinea have more limited provisions. Social work training is well
developed in Indonesia where the vocational, nonuniversity approach used in the
Netherlands was emulated. However, there has been a trend toward expanding
social work education in the universities.
It is likely that social work will continue to expand in the developing countries
where the demand for professional personnel is great. It is likely that social work
in these countries will face particular challenges arising from their unique experi
ence of poverty, development, and cultural diversity. Schools of social work in
many of these countries have already responded to these realities and, as will be
discussed later in this chapter, have much to teach social workers in the industrial
countries.
International Characteristics
of Social Work Practice
As with social work education, there are significant differences in social work
practice in different parts of the world. On the other hand, many common features
can be identified. As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, social work is
characterized by its use of professionally trained personnel who apply knowledge
and skills to promote human well-being. In seeking to enhance human well-being,
social workers apply different methods of practice including casework, group
work, and community work to give expression to the profession's remedial,
preventive, and promotive functions. They engage in established fields of practice
where they have acquired a body of knowledge and practice expertise. It is largely
around these common activities that the profession's identity has emerged and by
which it is known to the public.
Common activities characterize social work around the world. Social workers
in most countries are involved in established fields of practice such as child
welfare, mental health, medical social work, income security, school social work,
youth work, community organization, services to disabled people, probation and
corrections, care of elderly people, residential care, and employee assistance. Some
of these fields, such as child welfare, have become so closely identified with social
work that they are frequently regarded as synonymous with social work practice.
As was noted earlier, social workers in most countries are primarily engaged in
remedial work. Most of the clients they deal with have emotional, interpersonal,
familial, financial, and other problems that require social work intervention to
either restore functioning or otherwise provide long-term care and support. His
torically, social work has used casework and counseling to deal with these prob
lems, and often residential services and the provision of income support have also
been needed.
Social workers in most countries are employed by government and voluntary
social service organizations. Private practice has emerged in only a few countries
such as the United States. Although many voluntary organizations are sponsored
and funded by religious bodies, they often obtain subsidies from government. This
is also true of secular voluntary agencies. However, in most countries, government
agencies are the major employers of social workers. These agencies are known as
ministries or departments of social welfare and have a statutory responsibility for
child welfare, income support, mental health, and related services. These core
social service agencies may exist at the national, regional, or local level. Social
workers are employed at the local level in countries with a significant degree of
administrative decentralization. This is the case in many industrial countries. In
other countries, social workers are employed by national or state governments even
though they may work at the local level. The national government is the main
employer of social workers in many African nations.
Most social workers are to be found in urban areas where social problems are
most visible. This is true in both the industrial and developing countries. As was
noted earlier in this chapter, social work emerged in the rapidly growing cities of
Europe and North America to deal with the social problems associated with
industrialization, urbanization, and poverty. Social work was also established in
the colonial capitals of the developing countries to deal with conspicuous urban
problems such as juvenile delinquency, destitution, and begging (Midgley, 1981).
However, in time, social work's role in these countries was broadened to encom
pass other activities. These activities include rural community development, youth
clubs, and women's groups. Although conventional remedial activities continue to
dominate the profession, social workers in the industrial countries have also found
employment in nonremedial settings.
In some countries, social workers have acquired unique expertise in innovative,
nontraditional fields of practice. For example, in India, social workers have
historically been engaged in what is known as labor welfare. In terms of India's
factory legislation, employers are required to appoint labor welfare officers to deal
with a variety of social and personnel issues associated with industrial employ
ment. In Africa, social workers have long been involved in rural community
development where they are not only responsible for organizing local people but
for building feeder roads, improving small-scale household agricultural projects,
and promoting village crafts. In Latin America, social workers have been exten
sively involved in political mobilization and in raising the consciousness of poor
and oppressed people. Indeed, "conscientization" has become a popular theme in
social work education in the region.
However, very little is known about the extent to which social workers in
different parts of the world engage in these diverse fields of practice. Few studies
have been undertaken to document the way social workers are deployed in different
countries. Indeed, it is only in recent years that accounts of social work practice
in different parts of the world have become available (Cannan et al., 1992; Hill,
1991; Hokenstad et al., 1992; Munday, 1989). However, even these accounts
contain limited statistical information about the numbers of social workers and the
tasks they perform in different parts of the world. In addition, the available
information is often unreliable or out of date. For example, while Monica Jimenez
and Nidia Alwyin (1992) report that about 7,000 social workers were registered
with the government in Chile, they believe that the actual number of professionally
qualified social workers is far higher. Clearly, much more research is needed if the
diverse practice roles of social workers are to be properly documented. Data on
the deployment of social workers in the developing countries are particularly
limited.
The United States is one country where extensive data on the deployment of
professionally trained social workers have been collected. June Hopps and Pauline
Collins (1995) estimate that there are over 600,000 social workers in the United
States of whom about 130,000 are members of the National Association of Social
Workers. Of the members of the National Association of Social Workers, the vast
majority (77%) are women. Although data are limited, data for other countries
reveal that social work is primarily a women's profession. Of the National Asso
ciation of Social Workers members, 7 5 % are in full-time employment, and the
largest group (39%) works in the public social services. This figure represents a
significant decline from the early 1980s when 4 5 % were employed in the public
sector; 24% worked in commercial social service agencies or in private practice
while the remainder were employed in the voluntary sector.
With regard to fields of practice, Hopps and Collins report that the largest group
of American social workers was engaged in mental health (33%), followed by child
welfare (16%), medical social work (14%), and family counseling services (11%).
The decline in public sector work has been accompanied by a sharp drop in the
numbers of social workers who are engaged in income support programs. Although
social workers have historically been employed in this field of practice, similar
declines are taking place in other countries where social workers are being replaced
by nonprofessional personnel. As resources for income maintenance programs in
many developing countries dwindle, it is likely that even fewer social workers will
find employment in this field of practice.
Despite the lack of statistical data about the deployment of social workers, it is
known that the profession has historically been responsive to new challenges. In
addition to fulfilling their traditional remedial roles, social workers have fre
quently embraced new causes and attempted to deal with pressing social concerns.
Social work's ability to respond to new needs and engage in new fields of practice
is a major reason for its diverse character. While social work will undoubtedly
continue to fulfill its traditional remedial functions, it will also respond to new
challenges in ways that will continually renew its commitment to promoting the
well-being of all.
ISSUES I N I N T E R N A T I O N A L S O C I A L W O R K
Over the years, social work has demonstrated an ability to engage in new activities
that diverge from the conventional, mainstream tasks that form the core of profes
sional practice. This ability reflects the profession's responsiveness to new chal
lenges and opportunities. Its recent involvement in combating the HIV/AIDS
pandemic is an example of this responsiveness. Social workers have also been
responsive to new issues and problems. As the profession's literature reveals, social
workers are perpetually engaged in lively debates on important issues that affect
the profession and its commitment to enhancing people's welfare. Some of these
issues have a special international relevance in the sense that they affect the
profession's global role and contribution. While they also have national relevance,
they are most extensively debated by social workers who engage in what was
previously described as international social work.
Some of these issues will be discussed in this chapter. They include social work's
commitment to social justice, the question of social work's identity as a profession,
and the nature of international exchanges in social work. This latter topic has been
the subject of extensive international debate. While there are other issues that affect
social work in the international context, the few discussed here provide some insights
into the questions that have attended social work's international expansion.
The Challenge of Social Justice
There has been a long-standing debate in social work about the profession's
involvement in social reform and activism. As Donald Brierland (1995) notes,
disagreements about social work's "cause" and "function" roles can be traced back
to the profession's early days. While some social workers urged the profession to
engage in social action and social reform, others believed that it should not
embrace causes but focus on professional functions. This issue has not been
resolved. Today, social workers still disagree about whether the profession should
be concerned with issues of social justice or issues of professional practice.
While the debate will probably not be resolved, few social workers regard social
reform and political activism as a mainstream professional responsibility, and few
are involved in activities of this kind. On the other hand, some social workers are
very concerned about social justice issues and are actively involved in promoting
a concern for these issues. Many are academic social workers, but practitioners are
also involved. Most of them are engaged in community-based forms of social work
practice where they work closely with groups of oppressed and deprived people.
In some cases, they are employed in specialized agencies that deal specifically with
these issues.
A concern with social justice is most often impelled when social workers find
themselves in situations where political power is abused and where democratic
forms of political expression are suppressed. While it cannot be claimed that social
workers have always been in the forefront of political resistance, they have often
aligned themselves with progressive groups who have sought to oppose totalitari
anism. In some cases, this has resulted in a significant reorientation of conventional
social work approaches and the introduction of new ideas and forms of practice
suited to the needs of political activism. One example is the reorientation of social
work in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s when conscientization and indigeni
zation became key concepts for the profession as it sought to increase its relevance
to the social and political realities of the region (Resnick, 1976). Conscientization
facilitated the involvement of social work in community organizing with poor and
oppressed people and provided a conceptual basis for enhancing their involvement
in political action that would further progressive change.
Another example comes from South Africa where social workers were faced
with the brutalities of apartheid (Mazibuko, McKendrick, & Patel, 1992). As the
minority government sought to promote its racist ideology and imposed increas
ingly strict limitations on democratic rights, social workers became involved in
activities that challenged the hegemony of the apartheid regime.
Of course, it cannot be claimed that all social workers participated in the struggle
for social justice in these regions. Indeed, in South Africa, a sharp distinction was
drawn between members of the dominant professional association who aligned
themselves with the government and those who opposed the regulation of the
profession by the state. Leila Patel (1992) has shown how progressive social
workers collaborated with grassroots organizations to create a politically respon
sive alternative to the formal welfare system operated by the apartheid regime. In
Chile, while social workers were also active in organizations that opposed the
Pinochet government, others remained uncommitted. However, as in South Africa,
activist Chilean social workers made a significant contribution to the struggle for
social justice. For example, one of the leading human rights organizations, the
Committee for Peace, was cofounded by a social worker in 1973 (Jimenez &
Alwyn, 1992).
While there are many other countries where human rights abuses continue to
occur regularly, social work's involvement in social justice does not always find
expression in direct political resistance to oppressive political regimes. There is a
need for social work to be politically aware even in countries where the democratic
process operates and where individual freedoms are respected. In these countries,
social work's involvement in social justice may transcend a concern with ensuring
that basic political rights are met and focus instead on wider issues of social rights.
Many politically concerned social workers in the industrial nations believe that
the profession should routinely engage in lobbying and advocacy on key social
issues that affect its clients (Haynes & Mickelson, 1991; Mahaffey and Hanks,
1982). Advocacy may be promoted through the professional associations, which
are well placed to exert influence at the national level, but it may also be achieved
through social work's involvement in the activities of progressive interest groups
that campaign for social reform. In addition, individual social workers can use their
skills in organizing to work with community and other groups to bring pressure to
bear on those who direct the political process.
A major challenge to social work in the industrial nations is the attack on the
welfare state by radical right groups. As was shown in Chapter 7 of this book, the
political right has successfully undermined the consensus that had emerged on
social policy issues in the years after World War II. While the right has not
succeeded in dismantling the welfare state, it is clear that major retrenchments have
taken place particularly in those social services that cater to the poorest and most
vulnerable groups. Social work has been directly affected by these developments.
Indeed, in countries such as Britain, social work has been targeted by the political
right for allegedly promoting permissiveness, irresponsibility, and dependency
(Jones, 1992). In other industrial countries, such as the United States, the profes
sion has not been singled out for attack, but even here budgetary cutbacks and
retrenchments in social provisions have resulted in a decline in the number of social
workers employed in the public social services. Public sector positions that were
once set aside for social workers have been declassified, morale has fallen, and as
Brian Munday (1989) points out, social workers "feel relatively powerless to affect
the political systems to decide national priorities" (p. 217).
The fact that social workers in many countries feel powerless to respond to
attacks on the social services shows that there is an urgent need for the profession
to engage in political activism and to campaign more effectively on issues of social
justice. While many would agree that social work needs to respond to the political
right's attack on state welfare programs, it is not clear that the profession has made
the commitment at the international level to pursue this goal. It is perhaps ironic
that social workers today make frequent use of terms such as empowerment when
helping oppressed groups of people but fail to realize that the profession itself
needs a heavy dose of empowerment. If social work is to fulfill its historic
commitment to helping oppressed ethnic minorities, the poor, refugees, and the
victims of HIV/AIDS, it must itself have the political potency to effect progressive
social change. Clearly, much more needs to be done if social work is able to attain
this goal and make a substantive commitment to social justice.
The Search for Professional

Identity, Roles, and Functions
As was noted earlier, social work has evolved different methods of practice such
as casework, group work, and community work to pursue its mission. The profes
sion is also involved in diverse fields of practice such as child welfare, mental
health, school social work, and medical social work. In addition, social workers
have found employment in settings such as nonprofit organizations, government
bodies, and community-based agencies. They discharge a great variety of functions
ranging from counseling to community organizing and are involved in administra
tion, research, and lobbying.
Because of the diverse roles, activities, and settings in which social workers are
engaged, it is not surprising that different social workers have very different
conceptions of what social work entails. Similarly, it is not surprising that most
people who are not in the field of social work have only a vague idea of what social
workers do. Many social workers who specialize in a particular activity or field of
practice often equate their work with professional social work. It is not uncommon
for social workers to claim that their preferred activity (whether it be counseling
or public sector practice or community organization) is "authentic" while other
activities are a digression from social work's "true" mission. The tendency to claim
legitimacy for one or another form of social work is unfortunately widespread and
is sometimes reinforced by professional training schools that commit themselves
to preparing students to practice in one exclusive field. Many professional schools
have sought to identify themselves exclusively with clinical practice, community
work, or some other highly focused activity.
Disagreements within the profession about social work's proper roles and
functions are not new. In the early 20th century, there were sharp differences of
opinion between the leaders of the Charity Organization Society and members of
the Fabian Society in Britain about what social work's appropriate roles should be.
Their attempts to create a joint professional training program in London foundered
because they could not reach agreement on this question (Woodroofe, 1962). In
the United States, there were similar disagreements about social work's involve
ment in social reform, public sector practice, and psychotherapy. These disagree
ments have not been resolved. As a recent book by Harry Specht and Mark
Courtney (1994) reveals, polemical debates about social work's proper roles and
functions are still being published.
This question has been extensively debated in the developing countries where
it is frequently argued that conventional practice approaches are unsuited to the
unique cultural and developmental needs of these countries. While it has often been
claimed that social work is based on universally shared principles and that it can
be applied to all cultures, Third World social workers have questioned this assump
tion, contending that alternative approaches are needed to work with people who
are culturally different from the profession's traditional Western clients (Almanzor,
1967; Midgley, 1981; Nagpaul, 1972). Similarly, many Third World social workers
have argued that the profession's individualized, remedial approach is poorly
suited to the pressing need for forms of intervention that address the problems of
poverty, deprivation, hunger, illiteracy, and ill health in developing countries
(Bose, 1992; Khinduka, 1971; Shawkey, 1972). These writers argue that the
conventional social roles that have been imported into the Third World nations do
little to ameliorate basic social problems and need to be replaced with develop
mental forms of practice. As this argument has gained support, efforts to identify
and implement new forms of social work intervention that contribute to develop
ment have intensified (Midgley, 1996a).
While many social workers believe that the profession should strive to adopt a
single, unique practice method and body of knowledge that will have universal
relevance, others are in favor of perpetuating social work's historical diversity and
eclecticism. They point out that social work has traditionally applied different
techniques to meet different types of social needs. Social work's flexibility is not,
they contend, a weakness but a strength that reveals the profession's unique ability
to respond to a variety of social problems in diverse ways. It is because of this
flexibility that social workers are able to meet new challenges and ensure social
work's relevance to changing social needs. Proponents of a unitary approach
Sociol Work in International Context
disagree and claim that it is precisely because social work is involved in so many
diverse activities that confusion about the profession's proper role and functions
is perpetuated.
It is unlikely that these different viewpoints will be resolved in the immediate
future, and perhaps a healthy tension between the two is desirable. However, it is
important that social workers refrain from dogmatically insisting that their views
on appropriate roles and functions should be universally accepted. Social work has
prospered in a climate of debate and disagreement on key issues. It is also important
that social workers be encouraged to experiment with new practice approaches that
suit diverse cultural, demographic, economic, and social realities. Social work's
historical ability to absorb new ideas and assimilate new forms of intervention
should be maintained. At the same time, the profession should not lose its core
identity. Its commitment to a shared body of knowledge, basic skills, and key
values must be maintained. Although this will probably mean that the issue of
social work's identity will never be completely resolved, it will be possible to
promote a standardized approach to social work practice within a broad generalist
and eclectic framework.
International Exchanges in Social Work
As this chapter has shown, social work has long been engaged in international
exchanges with colleagues in other countries. Indeed, international exchanges have
characterized the profession's development since its inception. There were exten
sive exchanges of ideas between social workers in Europe and North America, and
it was through international exchanges that social work emerged as a profession
in the developing countries. Examples have already been given of how missionar
ies, international development agencies, and the metropolitan governments en
couraged the development of professional social work in the Third World.
International exchanges in social work are multifaceted. First, they may involve
collaborative efforts to address mutual concerns and to strengthen social work's
international position. The creation of the IASSW in the late 1920s is an example
of this type of exchange. Since its inception, the association has fostered collabo
rative efforts to promote social work and strengthen the profession in different
parts of the world. Second, exchanges can be reciprocal. This type of exchange
occurs when social workers from two or more countries enter into mutually
beneficial relationships that foster the transfer of information on an equal basis. A
good example is the "twinning" projects that have been established by the National
Association of Social Workers in the United States to facilitate the exchange of
information between American social workers and colleagues in other countries.
Finally, exchanges can be unilateral in the sense that information flows from
professionals in one country to those in another. In this case, it is accepted that one
party has expertise that the other wishes to obtain. This type of exchange is known
as consultancy or technical assistance. Provided that the recipient requests assis
tance, and that the assistance is accurate and appropriate, exchanges of this type
are extremely valuable. However, when the assistance was not requested and when
the recipient is not fully aware of the implications of the exchange, or when the
information provided is inappropriate, problems occur.
There has been a good deal of discussion in international social work circles
about the merits of unilateral exchanges between social workers in the industrial
and developing nations. As was noted earlier, the emergence of social work in the
Third World owes much to exchanges of this kind. Professional schools of social
work in developing countries were often created on the initiative of external agents,
and in many cases this involved the replication of Western curricular approaches.
In addition, the development of professional practice was also extensively influ
enced by the Western model. In many developing countries, the development of
remedial social work services was given priority, and social workers engaged in
practice approaches that were very similar to those in Europe and North America.
Initially, the transfer of Western social work approaches to the Third World in
the years following World War II was not thought to be a problem. As Kendall
(1995) notes, American aid was welcomed. Indeed, the United States was regarded
as the paragon of an advanced, modern society that other countries should emulate
if they wished to modernize and become prosperous. This attitude not only fostered
the diffusion of American social work to the Third World but encouraged the
replication of other Western social welfare policies and practices as well (Midgley,
1984c).
It was only in the 1960s and 1970s, with the resurgence of Third World
nationalism and antipathy to American intervention in Vietnam, Latin America,
and elsewhere, that opposition to the diffusion of Western social work approaches
was first expressed (Healy, 1995a). Critics claimed that the replication of Western
approaches was culturally inappropriate to Third World conditions and unsuited
to the needs of the developing countries. They argued that Western social work
was unable to address the massive problem of poverty and deprivation that
characterized the Third World. They also claimed that it was excessively concerned
with urban, remedial social services and generally imperialistic in nature (Almanzor,
1967; Khinduka, 1971; Midgley, 1981; Nagpaul, 1972; Shawkey, 1972). Many other
writers have since echoed these sentiments, and as the topic was widely debated during
the 1980s, concerted efforts have been made to address the problem.
The very fact that the issue has been so widely debated has heightened awareness
of the need for a critical attitude toward professional exchanges. A critical attitude
of this kind should not inhibit international links but foster a more discerning
approach that ensures that technical assistance is professionally sound and appro
priate to local needs. There is evidence that social workers in developing countries
are now more aware of the problem and that they are more selective in the way
they engage in exchanges and accept international expertise (Midgley, 1989). Steps
have also been taken to promote the development of indigenous forms of social
work practice that are suited to the needs of developing countries. The IASSW has
played a major role in promoting discussion on this issue (Kendall, 1995).
As the issue of international exchanges in social work has attracted more
attention, the debate has been broadened to consider the usefulness of reversing
the direction of the flow of expertise so that social workers in the industrial nations
can learn from their colleagues in the Third World. The idea that Third World social
workers should be the passive recipients of Western expertise has been effectively
challenged by the argument that they have much to teach their colleagues in the
West. As Midgley (1990a) argues, Western social workers can benefit by learning
about cultural diversity, poverty alleviation, and managing budgetary constraints
from their colleagues in the developing countries. Third World innovations in
developmental social work can also be adopted with appropriate modifications in
the industrial nations (Midgley, 1996b; Midgley & Simbi, 1993).
Discussions of professional exchanges in social work have also resulted in more
careful experiments in which practice innovations in one country have been
carefully replicated. One example is the controlled replication of the British patch
model of social work service delivery in rural Pennsylvania in the United States
(Martinez-Brawley & Delevan, 1993). By carefully studying, implementing, evaluat
ing, and modifying practice innovations, new ideas can be effectively adapted to
local conditions. Although it is now widely accepted that international exchanges
in social work need to be truly reciprocal and appropriate, vigilance is still needed
to ensure that these goals are met. Unfortunately, social work consultants from the
industrial countries still continue to promote inappropriate approaches in other
countries and schools of social work in the industrial nations still fail to provide
appropriate professional training for students from developing countries. In some
cases, these schools have opened extension programs in other countries without
making curricular adaptations suited to the needs of other nations. As American
consultants have flocked to Eastern Europe to advise on the development of social
work in the region, concern about renewed professional imperialism have been
expressed. It is clear that a greater effort is needed if professional exchanges in
social work are to become truly reciprocal (Midgley, 1994d).
CHAPTER NINE
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Social development is an approach to promoting the well-being of people that

differs from other approaches such as philanthropy, social work, and social policy,
which were discussed earlier in this book. While it shares a commitment to
promoting human welfare with these approaches, it has its own distinctive features.
Its key characteristic is its emphasis on using development as a means for enhanc
ing people's welfare. This requires the harmonization of social interventions with
economic development efforts. The social development approach requires that
economic development result in tangible improvements in social well-being for
all. It also requires that social programs contribute to economic development. In
this regard, social development transcends conventional debates between residual
and institutional social welfare. Unlike these approaches, developmental social
welfare seeks to replace consumption-based remedial and maintenance-oriented
social programs with interventions that promote economic development.
Social development is not widely known in the industrial countries. It is,
however, well known in the developing countries where it has been used with
varying degrees of success for many years. As will be shown later in this chapter,
the term social development was invented by the British in colonial times to
connote social programs that were compatible with economic development. Be
cause most Third World countries recognized the urgent need for economic
development, they were reluctant to implement social programs that consumed
scarce resources on "unproductive" services and sought instead to introduce social
programs that had a positive impact on economic growth. Although the developing
180
International Social Development
countries did not abandon conventional remedial social welfare, developmental

programs were favored.
Today, the developmental approach is attracting more attention in the industrial
countries where conventional state welfare approaches are being criticized for
allegedly harming economic growth. Although it was shown in previous chapters
of this book that claims about the allegedly deleterious impact of state welfare are
dubious, the need for new ideas that will revitalize debates on social welfare is
badly needed. Social development meets this need.
A major impetus for promoting the developmental approach was the United
Nations World Summit on Social Development, held in Copenhagen in 1995. The
summit was attended by heads of state, government ministers, representatives of
international agencies, and delegates sent by voluntary organizations. Although
the summit did not attract as much international media attention as was hoped, it
fostered a greater awareness of social development in social welfare circles and
will, it is hoped, result in its wider adoption.
This chapter provides an overview of the social development approach. It outlines
its key features, traces its history, and discusses the main strategies that are used in
social development. Finally, it examines some of the issues and controversies arising
out of the implementation of the social development approach.
FEATURES OF THE SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
James Midgley (1995) has defining social development as "a process of planned
social change designed to promote the well-being of the population as a whole in
conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development" (p. 25). He points
out that social development can be distinguished from social work, philanthropy,
and social policy because it harnesses the process of development for social
welfare purposes. Unlike the other approaches, social development seeks to en
hance human well-being in the context of an ongoing process of development.
Social development also seeks to integrate economic and social policies. It views
economic and social processes as equally important components of the development
process. Social development cannot take place without economic development, and
economic development is meaningless if it fails to bring about significant improve
ments in the well-being of the population as a whole.
Social development does not cater primarily to needy individuals. Nor does it
give prominence to consumption-based services. Instead, it seeks to enhance the
well-being of the population as a whole through harnessing the power of economic
development for social ends. This does not mean that social development ignores
poor people or those with special needs. Indeed, social development has histori
cally been concerned with the poor and neediest sections of the population. But,
in providing for the needy, it emphasizes social interventions that transcend
established remedial and maintenance-oriented approaches by implementing pro
grams that draw previously marginalized people into the mainstream of the
economy. In this way, social programs make a positive contribution to economic

growth. This productivist emphasis is a unique feature of social development's
attempt to reformulate conventional social services and cater to needy people.
Social development not only requires that social service programs contribute
positively to economic development but insists that economic development con
tribute to improvements in people's welfare. Social development advocates believe
that economic growth is a prerequisite for raising standards of living. However,
they claim that economic growth of itself does not automatically enhance standards
of living. They do not accept that the benefits of economic growth "trickle down"
to the masses. Instead, they insist that economic growth creates employment,
increases people's incomes, and raises standards of living. It is the failure to ensure
that economic growth reaches all sections of the population that is responsible for
the conditions of distorted development that characterize many countries today
(Midgley, 1995). The problem in many countries is not an absence of economic
development but rather a failure to harmonize economic and social objectives and
to ensure that the benefits of economic progress reach the population as a whole.
The problem of distorted development was recognized in the description of global
social conditions in Chapter 3.
In addition to harmonizing economic and social interventions, social develop
ment has several other distinctive features. For example, it has an interdisciplinary
focus, which draws on the knowledge of different social sciences. It is, in particu
lar, inspired by the insights of political economy that focus on economic and
political issues within a broad macroframework. This macroframework reflects
social development's inclusive or universalistic scope. Instead of focusing on
needy individuals, social development is concerned with communities, regions,
and societies. While it is particularly concerned with the inner-city poor, impov
erished rural dwellers, ethnic minorities, and women who are neglected by eco
nomic growth or excluded from participation in the economy, its concern for these
groups takes place within a wider universalistic context of interventions that
promote the welfare of all. Social development's political economy approach also
addresses values, beliefs, and ideologies explicitly. This permits the articulation
of different strategies for attaining social development goals.
Another feature of social development is its concern with process. This notion
elicits a commitment to growth and change and is, therefore, explicitly progressive
in nature. Advocates of social development believe that it is through progressive
social change engendered by economic development that people's welfare can be
promoted. Although the ideal of social progress is often ridiculed in intellectual
circles today, social development advocates believe in the prospect of human
betterment. They reject the nihilism, cynicism, and despair that have characterized
many assessments of global social conditions. However, they are not complacent
and believe that much needs to be done to improve the human condition. Despite
the challenges ahead, they believe that social development offers a viable prospect
of enhancing social welfare around the world.
It is in this regard that the social development approach can be viewed as offering
an alternative to the policies and programs of the radical right. As was shown in
Chapter 6, the right's electoral successes have undermined conventional social
policy approaches. Although the welfare state has not been dismantled, many
social policy experts are pessimistic about the future of state social programs, and
many believe that new approaches that offer a credible alternative are needed.
Social development's proponents claim that its productivist approach and concern
for economic issues offer an alternative of this kind. They believe that the develop
mental approach has potential electoral appeal because it directly addresses eco
nomic concerns and, in particular, seeks to identify social interventions that have
a positive impact on economic growth.
Like other approaches for promoting social welfare, social development is
interventionist in that its proponents believe that organized efforts are needed to
bring about improvements in social welfare. They do not accept that social
improvements occur naturally as a result of market forces or because of individual
effort. Instead, social development implements various strategies within the devel
opment process to achieve its goals. These strategies draw on different normative
theories and use the resources of the market, community, and state. They will be
discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
History of Social Development
The ideas underlying the social development approach are not new. Many
historical examples of attempts to link social interventions to economic activities
can be found. For example, during the 19th century the volunteer workers of the
Charity Organization Society in England routinely sought to help their impover
ished clients to find jobs or to assist them to start small businesses that would
generate sufficient income to meet their needs. Similarly, the Poor Laws required
that able-bodied recipients of poor relief be put to work so that they would be able
to support themselves. Unfortunately, these work requirements were widely abused,
and instead of helping people to become productive, they exploited and legitimized
the use of punitive measures against the poor.
Historical examples of attempts to direct the economy to improve the living
standards of the population can also be given. Although many economists in the
19th century believed that government intervention in the economy had harmful
consequences, this view was challenged by John Maynard Keynes, who argued
that it was possible to intervene to promote economic growth and create employ
ment. Keynes's ideas were widely accepted during the Great Depression of the
1930s when large numbers of workers in Europe and North America lost their jobs.
In the United States, President Franklin Roosevelt adopted Keynes's recommen
dations and launched a massive economic recovery program, the New Deal,
designed to stimulate economic development and get people back to work. In
addition to using economic measures, he also introduced public works and income
support programs. The public works programs provided temporary employment
for many unemployed workers, and instead of making them dependent on state
income support, it kept them productive. As a result of the public works program,
many schools, hospitals, parks, museums, roads, bridges, airports, and other
structures were built. These facilities added enormously to the country's economic
and social infrastructure. Although the New Deal also introduced consumption-
based programs such as social security and Aid to Families With Dependent
Children (AFDC), its emphasis on investment and its attempts to link social with
| ^ APPLIED INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
economic measures is a good example of an early attempt of a developmental

approach.
Unfortunately, the developmental aspects of the New Deal were neglected, and
after World War II when employment levels were high, its consumption and
maintenance programs were given more prominence. Today, it is these programs
that are criticized for detracting from the economy and failing to contribute to
economic growth. If these criticisms are to be effectively countered, the implemen
tation of developmental social programs is urgently needed.
Midgley (1994b) claims that it was in the context of attempts to promote
economic development in the Third World that social development emerged as a
coherent approach in social welfare. At the end of World War II, the people of many
developing countries began to campaign for independence from European colonial
rule. In addition to seeking political sovereignty, they wanted to be economically
independent. Many nationalist leaders were inspired by the Soviet Union's use of
central economic planning to modernize the economy and reduce dependence on
imports and external economic influences. These political leaders began to agitate
for the adoption of economic planning, and as the struggle for independence
progressed, economic development was given high priority.
It was in this context that the British authorities began to promote economic
development in the colonial territories. Legislation was enacted in Britain to
increase lending for development, and colonial administrators were instructed to
adopt measures that would enhance local economic development efforts. Because
economic development was given priority, social welfare programs were viewed
as being of marginal importance to national development efforts.
Limited social welfare programs had been established in the colonies in the
middle decades of this century. Remedial programs such as reformatories for
young offenders, asylums for persons with mental illness, homes for destitute
elderly persons, and limited casework services had been created in the British
colonies. Social assistance programs that involved the payment of small allow
ances were also introduced. These services catered primarily to the urban destitute.
However, because of the emphasis then being placed on economic development,
these remedial programs were often criticized for consuming scarce resources
needed for investment and growth (Livingston, 1969). Responding to these criti
cisms, colonial welfare administrators sought to identify new interventions that
would transcend the remedial approach and contribute positively to economic
growth. By identifying new developmental programs, they hoped to promote rather
than detract from economic development.
It was in West Africa in the 1940s that British colonial welfare administrators
first implemented social programs that sought to enhance people's welfare in ways
that also promoted economic development. One such program was known as mass
education (Brokensha & Hodge, 1969). Mass education not only involved literacy
training in the narrow sense of the term but included activities that would enhance
the standards of living of ordinary people, particularly in rural areas. It included
the development of crafts and village technologies; the promotion of small-scale
agriculture; the construction of economic and social infrastructure such as feeder
roads, community water supplies, sanitary facilities, bridges, and local irrigation
systems; the establishment of small family enterprises; and the creation of health
centers, schools, and other community facilities.
Mass education clearly transcended the welfare department's limited remedial

interventions. It not only shifted social welfare away from remedial interventions
that consumed scarce revenues on unproductive services but also promoted social
welfare within an economic development context. The British Colonial Office in
London liked this new approach and encouraged its spread throughout the Empire.
However, the term mass education seemed inappropriate and was soon replaced
by the term community development. This new term explicitly connoted a concern
with development and a focus on communities rather than individuals.
Community development did not replace the conventional remedial services of
the colonial welfare departments but instead linked them to the new developmental
programs. In 1954, the term social development was formally adopted by the
British government to connote the combination of remedial social welfare and
community development. The new term also suggested that both approaches be
linked to wider efforts to promote the overall development of societies. As an
important British policy document (United Kingdom, Colonial Office, 1954)
argued, social development involves "nothing less than the whole process of
change and advancement of a territory considered in terms of the progressive
well-being of society and the individual" (p. 14).
The British government played a decisive role in the formulation of the social
development approach, but its contribution was subsequently augmented by the
United Nations and other international agencies. In the 1950s, the United Nations
adopted the term social development and began to promote its spread throughout
the Third World. However, the United Nations viewed social development some
what differently from the British. While the British approach emphasized commu
nity-level activities, the United Nations stressed the role of national interventions
by governments through central planning. At the time, national development
planning was being widely adopted in the developing countries, but it focused
almost entirely on economic aspects. Central planning agencies were staffed by
economists who were exclusively concerned with mobilizing investments, promot
ing economic growth, and fostering rapid industrialization. However, some offi
cials in the United Nations were critical of the emphasis being placed on economic
planning, which they believed had resulted in the neglect of the social dimensions
of development (Hardiman & Midgley, 1989). At the end of the 1960s, they invited
development economists such as Gunnar Myrdal to advise on ways that economic
development planning and social welfare programs could be harmonized (United
Nations, 1971 b). Myrdal recommended that government economic planning agen
cies be more concerned with social issues and introduce policies that directly
addressed the problems of poverty, inequality, and other human needs. He also
proposed that social planning divisions be created in development planning agen
cies and that social planners be trained to implement policies that raise standards
of living, increase human capital, and expand the social services.
Myrdal was assisted by other development economists such as Benjamin Hig
gins and Hans Singer, who also encouraged the United Nations to promote social
planning in the Third World. These recommendations resulted in the adoption of
several United Nations resolutions on "unified socio-economic planning," which
urged member states to adopt social planning. In the 1970s, many developing
countries had implemented these ideas, and social planning was widely introduced
in the Third World. Many central planning agencies began to employ social
planners, and national development plans gave increasing recognition to social

programs and objectives. The United Nations also supported the creation of
training programs for social planners. One of these programs was established at
the London School of Economics in the early 1970s (Hardiman & Midgley, 1980).
Unfortunately, the oil shocks, Third World indebtedness, and the international
influence of radical right ideas has impeded the effective implementation of the
social planning approach in social development. In many countries, national
development planning has been weakened or even abandoned, and resources for
effective implementation have been slashed.
The statism of the social planning approach was not only attacked by the
political right but by advocates of community-based development strategies. They
reproached the United Nations for promoting a top-down style of development that
relied excessively on government intervention. They claimed that this approach
neglected local communities and failed to involve local people in the development
process. The United Nations reacted to these criticisms by paying more attention
to community-based social development programs, and during the 1970s, it refor
mulated older community development ideas as "popular" or "community partici
pation" (United Nations, 1971a, 1975). Other international agencies such as
UNICEF and the World Health Organization also gave priority to community-
based social programs (United Nations Children's Fund, 1982; World Health
Organization, 1982). As a result of these developments, community-based inter
ventions are now regarded as a vital part of social development (Midgley, 1995).
The social development perspective was also embraced by other international
agencies. The International Labor Organization urged its Third World member
states to transcend conventional approaches for alleviating unemployment and to
deal instead with the root causes of poverty. At the World Employment Conference
in 1976, the organization adopted the basic needs approach, which advocated that
economic development policies be concerned with raising the standards of living
of the whole population and not only with j o b creation in the modern sector of the
economy (International Labor Office, 1976). As Paul Streeten and his colleagues
(1981) noted, there is little point in seeking to address the needs of the urban
unemployed when the basic needs of the majority of the population have not been
met. While the basic needs approach advocated a strong role for government in
formulating national policies for enhancing people's social well-being, it also
urged extensive use of community-based programs to achieve this goal.
During the 1970s, under the leadership of Robert McNamara, the World Bank
also focused on the problems of poverty and inequality in development. The World
Bank supported a major study that recommended that economic growth policies
be accompanied by redistributive measures designed to enhance people's welfare
(Chenery, Ahluwalia, Bell, Duloy, & Jolly, 1974). It also expanded its lending
policies, which had traditionally been concerned with large-scale development
projects, and it began to allocate more funds for education, health, housing, and
other social programs (World Bank, 1975). Like the basic needs approach, the
World Bank's social development programs also sought to combine government
and community-based interventions.
However, social development was undermined by economic events and ideo
logical changes during the 1970s. Many developing countries had borrowed
extensively on international financial markets, and with the global recession

caused by the two oil shocks, they found that they could not repay their debts.
Inflation and economic stagnation had also caused labor unrest and widespread
discontent in the industrial countries, and this fostered electoral support for radical
right political movements. By the early 1980s, right-wing governments were in
office in Britain and the United States, and both sought to retrench the extensive
state welfare programs that had previously been introduced. Similar retrenchments
occurred in the developing countries where the imposition of structural adjustment
programs seriously impeded the implementation of social development programs.
As national development planning agencies lost authority, social programs were
curtailed. By the mid-1980s, social development all but disappeared from interna
tional discussions on social welfare. The recent revival of interest in social
development resulting from the United Nations World Summit in 1995 offers
hope that a developmental perspective that effectively addresses the pressing
problems of poverty and deprivation in the lives of hundreds of millions of people
throughout the world will gain international support. It is also hoped that it may
form the basis for a new approach in social welfare, in which social programs that
are productivist and focus on social investment rather than consumption-based
services are emphasized.
STRATEGIES FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
As the preceding historical overview has shown, different strategies have been
used at different times to promote social development. These include government
programs that operate at the level of centralized national planning as well as
community-based programs that involve local people in social development activities.
Also relevant are programs that foster entrepreneurship and the use of economic
markets for social ends. Known by different names, these strategies offer a variety
of options for the proponents of social development to integrate social and
economic policies and programs within a comprehensive development process.
Midgley (1993, 1995) has classified the different social development strategies
in terms of their ideological roots. Noting that the different strategies give expres
sion to different ideological tendencies in Western political thought, he has grouped
the strategies into the enterprise, communitarian, and statist approaches. All three
approaches have been advocated by the proponents of social development and all
offer useful proposals for enhancing standards of living through an integrated
development process.
Enterprise Strategies
Currently, enterprise strategies are very much in favor and are often touted as
the best method of fostering rapid economic growth. Proponents of the enterprise
approach believe in the importance of individual effort, the market, and en
trepreneurship in promoting people's welfare. However, advocates of the enter

prise approach do not advocate an extreme laissez-faire position that rejects any
form of government intervention. Instead, they advocate policies that strengthen
individual capabilities to function in a competitive market situation. They encour
age government to engage in institution building that will strengthen the enterprise
culture. In the context of Third World development, proponents of the enterprise
approach have placed emphasis on informal-sector activities that they believe offer
the best hope for people in developing countries to generate the income they need
to improve their living standards. Similar policies for small business development
are being promoted in the industrial countries. Proponents of the enterprise
approach also believe that governments should lower taxes, privatize services, and
deregulate the economy so that commercial enterprises can flourish and expand
employment opportunities, which will raise incomes and improve standards of
living. While these recommendations are compatible with what the World Bank
(1991) calls "market friendly" policies, they transcend conventional market ap
proaches by advocating interventions that create labor-intensive industries, facili
tate self-employment, and promote productive activities.
Communiforian Strategies
Communitarian strategies emphasize the role of communities in social develop

ment. While the enterprise approach focuses on individuals, advocates of the
communitarian approach believe that communities are best placed to organize
themselves and ensure that their well-being is enhanced through social and eco
nomic development efforts. Communities are not only able to engage in productive
activities, but they can also exert greater control over local resources and affairs.
Local people are best able to judge what their needs are and to engage in
collaborative efforts to address these needs. By working together, they are also
able to secure external resources to promote economic and social development at
the local level.
The communitarian approach has long been popular in social development
circles. As was shown earlier, community development first emerged in colonial
times to mobilize the participation of rural people in economic and social devel
opment. While community development engaged people in productive activities,
it has been complemented by the more activist community action approach, which
is designed to enhance political awareness among people and increase their
involvement in decision making. This approach has been particularly viable with
poor and oppressed communities. It has also inspired feminist social development
strategies. As a community, women's needs and perspectives have been much
neglected in development thinking, and throughout the world, women remain
marginalized and oppressed. However, women's groups have become much more
active in social development in recent years. They have formulated a gender-based
communitarian approach, which addresses women's concerns and contends that
social progress can only occur if women are fully involved in social development
endeavors.
Statist Strategies
Statist strategies are based on the belief that social development can best be
promoted by governments, their specialized agencies, policy makers, planners, and
administrators. Drawing on the socialist idea that the state embodies the interests
of society as a whole and that it has a responsibility to promote the well-being of
all citizens, advocates of statist strategies believe that governments are best able
to promote social development. While statists recognize that the power of the state
has in the past been used for evil, they argue that many governments are committed
to furthering the welfare of their citizens. They also believe that governments are
best able to mobilize resources to achieve this goal. Governments have the
authority to ensure that social development policies are implemented. They also
have substantial resources to promote social development. Because they have the
most comprehensive perspective, they are able to harmonize social and economic
policies.
The statist approach has dominated development thinking during this century.
It has found expression in the Western liberal democracies, in the centrally planned
communist countries, and in Third World development planning. As was shown
earlier, unified socioeconomic planning, redistribution with growth, and basic
needs are just some of the statist strategies in social development that have been
adopted in the past. Although statism has come under attack since the 1980s, and
is now tempered by a greater recognition of the need for individual and community
involvement, the idea that governments can promote positive social change through
development has not been invalidated.
Institutional Approach
Because of their ideological nature, these different strategic approaches to social

development are often viewed as antagonistic, and proponents of different strate
gies often engage in fierce debates about their effectiveness and desirability. They
generally champion one of these strategies, disregarding the potential of other
strategies to contribute to people's well-being. Midgley (1995) has criticized this
tendency, pointing out that different social institutions including the state, market,
and community can be mobilized to promote the attainment of social development
goals. He argues that different strategic approaches to social development such as
basic needs and community participation emphasize only one of these institutions
and that they do not, therefore, use the full range of possible interventions
conducive to human well-being.
Instead of dogmatically favoring one approach over the others, he urges that the
different social development strategies be synthesized within a coherent strategic
approach that views different strategies as complementary rather than antagonistic.
Midgley's synthesis is called the institutional perspective. It articulates a com
prehensive and pragmatic approach to social development that not only harmo
nizes economic and social interventions but gives appropriate emphasis to different
normative preferences. Because the institutional perspective is comprehensive and
pragmatic, it is conducive to mobilizing a variety of programs and policies that
can enhance people's welfare within the context of a dynamic process of economic
development.
However, to foster the harmonization of different social development strategies,
Midgley contends that the institutional perspective requires governments to play
an active role in managing and coordinating their implementation. Midgley calls
this role for government managed pluralism. He believes that governments should
direct the process of social development in ways that maximize the participation
of communities, the market, and individuals in the development process. In
addition to facilitating and directing social development, governments should also
contribute directly to social development through a variety of public sector policies
and programs. It is this activist role for government and its ability to orchestrate a
pluralistic set of strategic options based on market, community, and state ap
proaches that characterize the institutional perspective and its emphasis on man
aged pluralism.
Midgley's institutional perspective is also characterized by an emphasis on
materialism. While much of the literature on social development tends to empha
size nonmaterial activities, Midgley argues that the promotion of people's material
well-being should be given priority. Nonmaterial or ideational strategies in social
development are concerned with individual growth and actualization, conscienti
zation, participation, and the promotion of community solidarity. While Midgley
does not deny that nonmaterial concerns are important, the institutional model
focuses primarily on the ways people's incomes can be raised, standards of living
enhanced, and material welfare improved.
In addition to its comprehensiveness, pragmatism, pluralistic nature, and em
phasis on material welfare, the institutional perspective has three key program
matic features. First, it seeks to create organizational frameworks by which an
integrated economic and social development process can be implemented. Second,
it seeks to ensure that economic development has a positive impact on the
well-being of people. Third, it promotes the formulation and implementation of
social policies and programs that contribute positively to economic development.
All three features are intended to foster the integration of the economic and social
dimensions of a balanced development process that enhances human welfare.
Organizational Framework
The institutional perspective requires an organizational framework that can

promote the attainment of social development goals. This involves the creation of
organizations that can assume responsibility for social development programs.
While social development strategies were previously formulated and implemented
exclusively by government agencies, there is greater recognition today that the
statist approach was excessively centralized and that it did little to acknowledge
community and other nongovernment social development efforts. Today, the
limitations of the statist approach have been acknowledged, and far greater em
phasis is placed on community-based interventions as well as policies and pro
grams that promote opportunities for people to use the market more effectively.
These developments reflect today's pluralistic ethos and are more conducive to the
involvement of diverse organizations in social development.
However, organizational structures are still needed to facilitate, coordinate, and
harmonize the activities of these diverse groups. In the absence of a framework of
this kind, it is likely that social development efforts will be fragmented, disorgan
ized, and inefficient. For this reason, the institutional approach requires that overall
responsibility for managing an integrated economic and social development sys
tem be entrusted to a government agency that is responsive to the interests of the
diverse groups involved in social development.
It is also important that organizational frameworks be created to enhance
collaboration between economic development agencies and organizations that are
responsible for social service policies and programs. Unfortunately, in many
countries, economic development agencies have no ongoing contacts let alone a
close working relationship with social welfare organizations. If social develop
ment is to be successful, economic development and social agencies must work
closely together.
The creation of social planning divisions within central planning agencies in
developing countries at the behest of the United Nations in the 1960s and 1970s
is an example of the type of organizational innovation that can be introduced to
promote integrated economic and social development. At that time, development
planning agencies employed economic as well as social development professionals
to formulate policies and plans and work closely with sectoral organizations to
coordinate and integrate development efforts. While it is hardly necessary that
prescriptive development plans be imposed by centralized development planning
agencies, organizational responsibility for promoting an integrated development
approach needs to be assigned to some central government body with the political
authority to implement effective development strategies.
However, it is important that any national agency that is established to direct,
facilitate, and coordinate social development should recognize, respect, and seek
to harmonize the efforts of different organizations responsible for implementing
the various strategic approaches described earlier. This agency should acknow
ledge the validity of different approaches and seek to foster their implementation.
As suggested earlier, its style and approach should be one of managed pluralism.
In addition to facilitating and coordinating the activities of different organiza
tions involved in social development, a national development agency should
ensure that appropriate emphasis is given to development efforts at the local,
regional, and national levels. The integration of economic and social development
at different levels is another key feature of the institutional approach. In the past,
development efforts were excessively focused on the national level. Today, more
emphasis is placed on strategies that operate at the regional and local levels. While
social development should not neglect the national level, the institutional perspec
tive requires that social development policies and programs be formulated and
implemented at the regional and local levels as well and that these efforts be
harmonized within the wider framework of national social development policy.
Typically, regional development seeks to promote the economic and social
transformation of underdeveloped areas. Local development effort takes place at
the level of a small town or a village and its surrounding rural areas. It also takes
place in urban areas. Although social development began with efforts to promote
community economic development in rural areas, much community-level social
development in the 1970s and 1980s was concerned with nonmaterial activities
such as political mobilization, conscientization, and people's participation with the
result that economic development projects were neglected. Today, local commu
nity-based economic development is again being stressed particularly with refer
ence to the way community development can promote economic growth and
enhance the incomes and standards of living of local people (Blakely, 1994;
Galaway & Hudson, 1994).
Promoting Human Weil-Being

Through Economic Development
A second programmatic feature of the institutional approach to social develop

ment is its attempt to ensure that economic development directly improves people's
welfare. It was argued earlier in this chapter that while many countries have
experienced satisfactory levels of economic growth during the past 50 years, the
development process has often been distorted, benefiting only a section of the
population and leaving large numbers of people in poverty. Unfortunately, dis
torted development is widespread and exists not only in the developing countries
but in the industrial nations as well.
A major reason for this situation is the exclusion of sizable sections of the
population from participating in economic development. It is now widely recog
nized that conventional development models that rely on investments in industry
to create economic growth do not absorb labor on a sufficient scale to ensure that
the population as a whole participates in the modern economy. In the developing
countries, hundreds of millions of people continue to live in poverty in the rural
areas where they are dependent on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood.
Contrary to the predictions of economic growth theory, they have not been brought
into the modern economy. Another sizable section of the population subsists in the
urban informal sector. As numerous studies have shown, economic development
in many Third World countries has only benefited a small proportion of the
population, those who have secured employment in the modern industrial, com
mercial, and service sectors.
A similar situation exists in some industrial nations where increasing numbers
of people are excluded from the economy because they cannot participate in a
technologically sophisticated postindustrial society. The problem is particularly
severe in the United States where many communities consist of people who are
now relegated to lives of poverty, crime, and despair. In some urban areas, where
an underclass (Wilson, 1987,1996) of excluded people has emerged, prospects are
bleak. With deindustrialization and the absence of development policies that can
bring these people into the economic mainstream, deprivation has become a way
of life. Similar trends are now being observed in some other industrial nations such
as Britain where inner-city poverty has become much more acute.
The belief that economic growth of itself creates employment opportunities and
raises the standards of living of these people is a dubious one. Although politicians
continue to popularize what is known as the trickle down theory of economic
growth, it has been widely discredited. Numerous empirical studies have shown
that unless governments proactively intervene to ensure that the population as a
whole participates in economic development, poverty and conditions of distorted
development will persist. One of the most detailed empirical studies of this kind
was undertaken by Irma Adelman and Cynthia Morris (1973), who concluded that
"there is no automatic or even likely trickling down effect of economic growth to
the poorest segments of the population" (p. 189). Instead, they argued that the
natural consequence of uncontrolled capitalist development is the concentration
of wealth and the persistence of poverty.
To remedy the problem of distorted development, economic growth must ensure
that the incomes and standards of living of the whole population are raised.
Although proponents of social development are critical of conventional economic
growth models, they accept that economic growth is a prerequisite for enhancing
people's welfare. Indeed, they not only stress the need for growth but recognize
that economic development is an engine of social progress. They believe, therefore,
that governments should adopt measures that enhance economic growth. This
involves creating a climate for enterprise by encouraging investment, liberalizing
trade, and removing restrictive regulations that inhibit entrepreneurship. Institu
tions that are conducive to enhanced economic activity for all sections of the
population should be created. These include institutional arrangements that facili
tate access to credit, enforce contracts, recognize property ownership, register
commercial enterprises, award patents, and engage in a host of other activities
conducive to the operation of a dynamic economy.
However, economic growth must result in the increased participation of the
whole population in economic development and in tangible improvements in
incomes and standards of living for all. Most economists believe that wage
employment is the single most effective means by which this goal can be achieved.
Economic historians such as Walt Rostow (1960) point out that social progress in
the Western industrial countries can be largely attributed to the creation of mass
employment in industrial occupations since the end of the 19th century. Although
it was shown earlier in this book that government social programs have also
contributed significantly to the improvements in the standards of living that have
taken place, large-scale employment creation through economic development has
undoubtedly been a major reason for their success.
However, it is now recognized that industrialization does not magically solve
the problems facing the developing countries. Jacques Loup (1980) has shown that
industry has only absorbed a relatively small proportion of the labor force in these
countries. In many countries, investments in modern industry have not created jobs
on a large scale. In fact, these investments have often required expatriate rather
than local expertise. Similarly, the capacity of industry to ensure continued mass
employment in Western Europe and North America is now in doubt. For this
reason, increasing emphasis is today being placed on alternative forms of produc
tive labor use. Self-employment or employment in small firms or family-owned
enterprises is recognized to be an effective means for income generation in both
the industrial and developing nations.
In Third World nations, economic development policies place much more

emphasis on enhancing self-employment and supporting producers who work in
agriculture and in the informal sector of the economy. The World Bank (1990,
1991) strongly encourages the adoption of policies that increase the productivity
of those who work in these sectors. Indeed, it reports that countries that have
successfully promoted improvements in small-scale agriculture have not only
reduced poverty but also stimulated the economy by generating the surpluses that
have been used to consume industrial goods and provide investment for industrial
development.
There is also a growing awareness that similar approaches are needed to create
productive employment and self-employment for low-income and poorly skilled
people in the industrial nations. More economists in these nations recognize that
fewer people can now expect to find lifelong employment in corporations. While
this was a dominant pattern in the years after World War II, economists believe
that corporate employment is shrinking, more and more workers will be employed
in small firms, and self-employment will become much more widespread (Aron
son, 1991). In addition, as full employment is increasingly recognized to be an
unattainable goal, job insecurity will increase and many more people will be
compelled to take greater personal initiative to find remunerative work. In this new
climate, proactive labor market policies that create employment and self-employ
ment are urgently needed.
There are many ways in which governments can support employment creation
and improvements in productive labor use in self-employment or in small-firm
settings. Governments have in the past used the tax system and various macro
economic policy incentives to stimulate employment creation. Many of these
policies were based on the ideas of Keynes. In addition, governments have also
used public works programs to create employment. During the Great Depression,
these programs were an effective means for maintaining the incomes of unem
ployed workers and for stimulating the economy. They continue to be used with
considerable success as a poverty alleviation strategy in many developing coun
tries (World Bank, 1990). Although these measures have been widely attacked by
the political right as an unwarranted interference in the economy, they are being
revived partly in response to political concerns about j o b losses accompanying
deindustrialization in the Western nations.
In addition to creating productive employment and self-employment, economic
development can improve human well-being by increasing people's opportunities
to participate in the modern economy. Perhaps the single most important means
for achieving this goal is education. Numerous studies have shown that educated
people have higher incomes and standards of living. Summarizing this research,
the World Bank (1991) notes that an increase in one year of formal schooling can
raise incomes by as much as 25%. For example, in Thailand, an increase in one
year of schooling among girls raised their incomes by 2 5 % . In the United States,
the average annual income of African American males increased by 5% following
an additional year of schooling. In addition to benefiting those individuals who
have increased educational standards, educational expenditures contribute signifi
cantly to a country's economic success. As will be shown in the next section of
this chapter, this is equally true of other forms of human capital investment such
as health care and nutrition.
Low educational levels, limited skills, and inadequate preparation for employ
ment are major reasons for the persistence of poverty in the industrial nations
where the demand for unskilled industrial labor has declined significantly. Because
there are few opportunities for inner-city dwellers with low skill levels to find
productive work, many turn to crime, drug dealing, and other illegitimate eco
nomic activities to ensure their livelihood. It is for this reason that social develop
ment advocates place great emphasis on education, skills development, and job
training. They believe that the inculcation of appropriate skills is a vital require
ment for poor people to effectively participate in economic development and raise
their standards of living. However, skills development requires a serious commit
ment and appropriate policies. In many industrial countries, inner-city public
schools no longer function to provide the skills young people need to compete in
the modern economy. Similarly, as Desmond King (1995) has shown, in countries
such as Britain and the United States, "work-welfare" policies are ineffective
because they do not promote employment proactively but serve a temporary
maintenance function, segregating recipients and offering limited, remedial ser
vices. On the other hand, the proactive labor market policies of countries such as
Sweden and Germany have ensured that skills are constantly upgraded in keeping
with the needs of a dynamic economy.
In addition to enhancing opportunities through education, governments can
foster the participation of ordinary people in the modern economy through increas
ing access to credit for small producers in the informal sector and in traditional
agriculture. Subsidized credit programs and the creation of financial institutions
that are specifically designed to meet the needs of low-income producers are
particularly important. In some countries, governments have supported nonformal
credit associations such as rotating credit and peer lending groups in an attempt to
help poor people improve their economic circumstances. Governments and non
profit organizations can also assist low-income producers by enhancing access to
appropriate, small-scale technologies that increase productivity. Simple technolo
gies of this kind can have a dramatic impact on productivity and often reach many
more people than large-scale investments in modern industry.
The development of infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, is another impor
tant means of enhancing participation in the modern economy. It also increases
economic production. By building feeder roads that improve access to markets or
by providing irrigation that raises crop yields, the incomes of many rural producers
are enhanced. Many governments have implemented programs that promote in
frastructural development, and in many parts of the world, these programs have
played a major role in raising the standards of living of rural people. Similar
programs can be introduced to foster economic participation among the urban poor.
Instead of imposing restrictive regulations that seek to suppress economic activi
ties among the urban poor, governments can adopt policies that promote informal-
sector activities. Training, access to credit, and assistance with marketing can also
help small producers to be more productive and increase their incomes.
These are just some of the policy instruments that can be used to ensure that
economic development includes the whole population and enhances the well-being
of all. While conventional economic development models fail to ensure that
ordinary people participate in development, these strategies maximize their in
volvement. In this way, they provide opportunities that enhance a productive
livelihood. However, it must be recognized that the extension of opportunities to

participate in the economy is not an easy task. It requires clearly formulated
policies, substantial resources, and a major political commitment. This is particu
larly important if the poorest and most deprived groups are to be reached.
Promoting Economic Development

Through Social Welfare
The third feature of the institutional perspective is its preference for social
programs that contribute positively to economic development. This feature re
quires that social expenditures contribute positively to economic development.
Known as the developmental or productivist approach in social policy, it represents
the converse of the idea that economic development contributes to social well
being. Its proponents believe that social expenditures should transcend conven
tional remedial and consumption-based approaches and promote economic growth.
It seeks to transcend residual and institutional debates in social welfare by arguing
that social programs designed to meet the needs of traditional client groups
emphasize social investments or participation in the economy. For this reason, it
is also known as the social investment approach to social welfare. While it
recognizes that there will always be people who cannot engage in productive
activities and will need to be maintained through conventional social welfare
programs, it suggests that much remedial and maintenance-oriented social welfare
can be replaced with development forms of intervention.
It is the emphasis on productivist and social investment in social development
that is attracting more attention in social welfare circles today. As was noted earlier
in this chapter, conventional consumption-based social welfare programs are now
widely criticized, and many social policy experts believe that new ideas are needed
to revitalize debates on social welfare. Some argue that an emphasis on social
programs that promote economic development offers a credible alternative to the
remedial and maintenance-oriented social services, which have been attacked by
the political right for unproductively consuming scarce resources. Social develop
ment's productivist emphasis addresses economic concerns and, in the current
political climate, may attract wider electoral support.
There are at least three types of productivist social programs that contribute
positively to economic development: social programs that mobilize human capital,
social programs that foster the creation of social capital, and social programs that
help the recipients of state welfare programs engage in productive employment or
self-employment.
Human Capital Programs
With reference to social programs that mobilize human capital, it has already
been shown in Chapter 6 that investments in education, nutrition, and health care
promote economic development. Educational investments have contributed sig
nificantly to the economic successes of the industrial countries, and as recent

research reveals, these expenditures have played a major role in promoting growth
in the newly industrializing nations as well. As the World Bank (1991) notes, the
economic success of East Asian countries such as Japan, Korea, Singapore, and
Taiwan has been dependent on the population having the skills and knowledge to
engage in productive economic activities. Similarly, education increases innova
tion, entrepreneurship, and productivity. Econometric calculations have shown
that increases in the number of years children attend school add incrementally to
both national output and to personal incomes. Economists have demonstrated that
it is possible to quantify the social rate of return to investments in education and
to vary these investments to produce the highest rates of private as well as social
return (Psacharopoulos, 1973, 1992). Human capital investments in health have a
similar effect. Research has shown that investments in clean drinking water supply,
infant nutrition, and public health produce far higher rates of return than invest
ments in curative and high-tech medical technologies (Abel-Smith & Leiserson,
1978; World Bank, 1980, 1993).
A good example of the implementation of the human capital approach in social
welfare is the way conventional child welfare services in many developing coun
tries are being redesigned. Instead of reacti vely responding to cases of child neglect
or abuse, social workers in many countries are involved in creating community-
based day care centers not only to educate children of poor families but also to
improve their nutritional standards. By using standard community organization
techniques, social workers have assisted parents and community leaders estab
lishing these centers, which also offer opportunities for maternal health education,
family planning, and other programs that enhance the status of women. There is a
good deal of evidence to show that investments in programs targeted at women
produce net economic gains and contribute positively to development. This expe
rience demonstrates that community-based child care that promotes human capital
development is an effective way of implementing the developmental approach in
social welfare.
Socio/ Capital Programs
Social programs that foster the formation of social capital also contribute to
economic development. The concept of social capital is still poorly defined, but it
is currently being used in the context of civil society analysis to refer to the volume
and intensity of cooperative networks and social relationships in communities
(Coleman, 1988). It has also been used in this context to emphasize the role of
social integration in promoting economic development. In a widely cited book,
Robert Putnam and his co-workers (1993) found that regions in Italy with well-
developed civic traditions have higher rates of economic development than those
regions where social integration is low. In other words, high levels of social capital
correlate positively with high rates of economic growth. This finding suggests that
social programs that foster social integration have a positive impact on economic
development.
The concept of social capital has also been used to refer to the creation of
economic and social infrastructure such as roads, bridges, irrigation and drinking
water systems, clinics, schools, and other facilities (Midgley, 1995). These com
munity-held assets are important in that they provide the economic and social base
on which development efforts depend. Another definition of social capital draws
on Michael Sherraden's (1991) work on social assets. Although he focused primar
ily on individual asset accumulation through the creation of individual develop
ment accounts (or IDAs), his proposals are compatible with a developmental
approach and are currently being implemented in various parts of the country.
All three variations of the concept of social capital have relevance for develop
mental social welfare programs. As was noted earlier in this chapter, the creation
of community development programs in the British colonial territories offered a
viable alternative to conventional residential and other remedial social welfare
services and made a positive contribution to economic development. Since then,
community-based social programs have proliferated throughout the world and
continue to serve as a viable instrument for implementing developmental social
welfare in low-income communities. However, it is important that these commu
nity-based programs stress the attainment of materialist goals through enhancing
people's engagement in economic activities. As was noted earlier in this chapter,
much community practice has stressed political mobilization and community
activism without paying adequate attention to the need to raise incomes and
enhance standards of living. It is important that these activities be augmented with
economic projects that address people's material needs (Midgley & Simbi, 1993).
Community-based developmental programs can also be used to assist special
needs clients such as elderly people, people with disabilities, or unemployed
youths. By organizing them and fostering their involvement in productive activi
ties within community settings, their needs are more effectively addressed than
through residential or other conventional social service programs. Similarly, con
ventional client groups can be assisted through programs that encourage savings
and asset accumulation (Sherraden, 1991).
Programs That Emphasize Productive

Employment or Self-Employment
Social programs can also contribute to economic development by assisting

low-income people and welfare clients to engage in productive employment or
self-employment. Today, the social developmental approach places emphasis on
programs of this kind. Instead of transferring scarce resources to maintain needy
groups in dependency, the developmental approach favors programs that help
needy people to find employment or engage in self-employment. In this way, their
self-respect is restored and they can claim full rights as citizens who work, pay
taxes, and contribute to economic development.
Social workers are playing an increasingly important role in promoting pro
grams of this kind. They now regularly assist special needs clients to participate
in vocational educational programs and to find employment. They have also been
active in the creation of microenterprises, particularly in Asian countries such as
the Philippines, where the government replaced its conventional cash social
assistance program with a microenterprise program for special needs clients
(Reidy, 1981). Similar programs have been introduced in other developing coun
tries and more recently in the United States, where they offer a viable alternative
to conventional income maintenance programs that seldom restore needy individu
als to economic self-sufficiency or self-respect (Balkin, 1989; Else & Raheim,
1992).
These examples suggest that developmental interventions can be used to tran
scend the conventional remedial and maintenance-oriented approaches that char
acterize state welfare programs in many countries. These developmental interven
tions make a positive contribution not only to the material welfare of needy people
but to economic development as well. While there will always be a need for
remedial social welfare to cater to those who cannot engage in productive activi
ties, proponents of the developmental approach urge that developmental policies
and programs be given priority. They believe that these programs have relevance
at a time when alternative ideas in social welfare are badly needed.
ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES

IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Although social development is not a recent innovation, it is being more widely

discussed today, and as may be expected, sharp differences of opinion about key
social development issues have emerged. Because the subject is intensely ideologi
cal, it is not surprising that varying points of view on these issues have been
expressed. Debates on some of the fundamental assumptions made in the field have
taken place, and questions about the possibility of attaining social development
goals have been raised. Because an understanding of these issues will provide
better insights into the field, they will be reviewed in this section of the chapter.
One issue for debate concerns the way social development has been defined. In
this chapter, social development has been defined as a process of social change
that results in the improvement of people's welfare. As has been noted earlier, this
definition stresses material rather than ideational aspects. While writers such as
Midgley (1995) emphasize the need for social development interventions that
reduce poverty by raising people's incomes and standards of living, others are more
concerned with social development programs that promote ideational goals such
as individual self-fulfillment, people's empowerment through conscientization,
and increased levels of humanitarianism and social concern. Although it is possible
to promote both types of interventions, social development advocates tend to favor
one of these approaches and to neglect the other.
The emphasis placed on economic development by writers such as Midgley
(1995) is also contentious. Other writers are not persuaded that social development
programs should be so closely linked to economic development. For example,
Richard Titmuss (1974) was skeptical of the idea that social policy should serve
economic interests. He criticized social programs that linked the payment of social
security benefits to work performance and argued instead that these benefits should
be paid on the basis of need without any consideration being given to work record.
Titmuss's criticism has been echoed by writers who are concerned that the
emphasis placed on productivist programs may ignore the needs of many people
who are unable to participate in the economy. They point out that social programs
were originally intended to help these people and that social development's
emphasis on labor market participation may result in the withdrawal of aid to needy
groups. They are particularly concerned that social development may be manipu
lated by right-wing politicians who will justify cuts in social expenditures on the
basis that productive employment is available to all.
While these concerns are valid, they do not justify the continued emphasis
placed on consumption-based and maintenance-oriented social programs. Partici
pation in the economy should not only be stressed as a means of ensuring people's
full participation in society but as a way of fulfilling citizenship rights. This is not
to deny that many people are unable to participate in the economy and that they
should be given assistance. Nevertheless, much more needs to be done to transform
consumption-based social programs into programs that contribute to development.
However, it is critically important that the costs of developmental programs be
recognized. Developmental social programs are not an inexpensive alternative to
conventional social welfare. Job training, human capital, and social capital pro
grams all cost money, and social development advocates need constantly to remind
political leaders of this fact.
The emphasis placed on economic development has also been criticized by some
writers who question the very idea that economic development brings positive
benefits to society. They reject the view that social progress can best be promoted
through economic development, and some even claim that economic development
has caused more harm than good. As H. W. Arndt (1978) has shown, various
antigrowth writers have attacked the emphasis accorded to economic development
in modern society because they believe that it encourages selfishness and acquisi
tiveness, destroys traditional values, emphasizes mindless consumerism, and pol
lutes the environment. Some writers have been particularly critical of the way
economic development has undermined traditional societies where Westernization
has weakened mutual support, respect for traditional values, and community
solidarity. It is perhaps in the field of environmental protection that most concern
about the impact of economic development has been expressed. There is no doubt
that the environment has been seriously damaged in many parts of the world
through exploitative economic projects. Fortunately, the emphasis now being
placed on environmental protection and the promotion of new development phi
losophies that emphasize sustainable development offer the prospect that efforts
to promote economic growth will be more sensitive to these concerns in the future
(Estes, 1993).
The concept of progress in social development has also been criticized. Many
philosophers, social scientists, and even literary figures have scorned the notion
of progress in Western social thought as naive utopianism. They point out that
social development's optimistic belief in the possibility of continued social and
economic progress is simply not justified in the light of current realities. Unlike
most social scientists, who believe that the past century has been characterized by
progressive change, critics of the idea of progress claim that far from progressing,
social conditions have deteriorated. As Robert Nisbet (1980) reveals, many re
spected scholars have argued that conflict, oppression, totalitarianism, poverty,
hunger, inequality, and alienation have been dominant themes in the human
experience during the 20th century.
Disagreements over the issue of progress in social development are not only
concerned with whether social conditions have improved but with the prospect of
whether progressive change is feasible. The proponents of social development
believe that it is possible to promote societal improvements through implementing
strategies that enhance human well-being. As was noted earlier, the idea of
managed pluralism in social development suggests that governments can introduce
a variety of social programs and, at the same time, orchestrate market and commu
nity institutions to achieve social development goals. This gives expression to the
idea of interventionism, which is the belief that it is both possible and desirable to
seek to change society for the better. As will be shown, the notion of intervention
ism has been the subject of much controversy for many years.
Although interventionist beliefs have gained popularity during this century, for
most of human history social change was ascribed to fate, fortune, or divine will.
As Midgley (1995) notes, it was largely through the writings of the Utopians that
people began to believe that it was possible to create an ideal society. During the
19th century, governments began to intervene in social affairs by providing
education, health care, and other social services, and in the 20th century, largely
through the writings of Keynes, governments began to intervene in the economy
in an attempt to stimulate economic growth and promote employment. However,
many leading political and social thinkers opposed this trend, claiming that state
intervention in social affairs would have harmful consequences. The famous
19th-century philosopher Herbert Spencer vigorously attacked state "interfer
ence," which, he claimed, would impede society's natural evolutionary trend
toward higher levels of civilization. During this century, equally famous writers
such as Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Karl Popper also criticized
state intervention, claiming that it not only harms the natural functioning of the
economy but leads to increasing government control over people's lives. These
arguments have gained popularity since the 1980s, and as was shown earlier in this
book, governments in many parts of the world have retrenched their social
programs as part of a worldwide trend toward reduced state intervention in social
and economic affairs.
This climate of opinion is hardly conducive to the implementation of a social
development approach that requires concerted intervention by governments, com
munities, and individuals. Indeed, some critics have claimed that social develop
ment is unworkable not only because of political opposition from the radical right,
but also because large-scale approaches to social welfare are out of touch with
contemporary realities. For example, postmodernist writers argue that grand schemes
for transforming society such as social development are no longer viable and that
small-scale solutions based on local involvement are required. Others have argued
that the global economy negates local and national social development efforts.
Attempts by governments to enhance the well-being of their citizens are seriously
affected by global trends over which they have little control. It has also been
claimed that social development's attempts at social engineering are as likely to

fail as have other Utopian schemes. Because human beings simply do not have the
technology or power to control events or engage in large-scale planning, the claim
that social development can bring about significant social change is doomed to
failure.
While it is true that efforts to implement social development strategies are faced
with formidable difficulties, the desperate conditions of poverty and social depri
vation that characterize the lives of hundreds of millions of people throughout the
world cannot be ignored. Social development is not a magical solution to the
world's problems, but it does provide a comprehensive, pragmatic, and workable
approach to social welfare that deserves to be more widely adopted.
CHAPTER TEN
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
IN SOCIAL WELFARE
This final chapter is concerned with international collaboration in social welfare.

It focuses on the role of intergovernment organizations and international voluntary
agencies in promoting human well-being. Today, many international bodies are
engaged in the promotion of social welfare. While social welfare effort was
previously a local or national responsibility, international organizations are today
making a significant contribution and playing an increasingly important role in
bringing international resources and pressures to bear on social welfare issues.
As was noted at the beginning of this book, human welfare has historically been
the responsibility of individuals and their families, supplemented by religious and
secular philanthropy and by the support of kin, neighbors, and local communities.
However, during this century, state social welfare provisions have expanded
rapidly, and governments throughout the world now provide extensive social
programs. The rise of government social provision was compatible with the
emergence of the nation state as the basic unit of social organization. When most
people lived in small communities, it was appropriate that welfare institutions
operated at the local level. However, with the rise of the nation state, the provision
of social services at the national level was a logical development. As national
consciousness replaced local identity, the idea that governments should create
social welfare systems to cater to the needs of their citizens was widely accepted.
While the academic study of social welfare has focused primarily on government
programs at the national level, globalization requires that more attention be given
to international activities in the field. Of course, international efforts to promote
203
people's well-being are not new. Nonprofit organizations such as the Red Cross
have been active at the international level for over a century, and intergovernment
organizations such as the United Nations have played a major role in promoting
human welfare on a global scale since World War II.
It is likely that international effort in social welfare will intensify in the future
and that international collaboration will increase. With increased international
communications, it is likely that new approaches in social welfare will diffuse
widely. As ideas are exchanged through international meetings and conferences,
increased opportunities for international publication, and more frequent exchange
visits, international knowledge about innovations in social welfare will spread
more rapidly than before.
This chapter examines international collaboration in social welfare by providing
a brief overview of the different international organizations that are engaged in the
field. They include both official international organizations and the rapidly ex
panding international voluntary sector. Examples are given to provide insights into
the activities of some of these organizations. These examples deal with issues of
women's welfare, refugees, and social security. They reveal the extent to which
national efforts have been complemented and even superseded by international
endeavor. Finally, some of the problems and controversies attending enhanced
international collaboration will be examined.
FORMS OF INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
International collaboration in social welfare operates through a great variety of

intergovernment and voluntary organizations. The intergovernment agencies in
clude the United Nations and its specialized agencies as well as official organiza
tions established outside the United Nations system such as the World Bank. These
agencies were established by formal agreements, and today they are collectively
owned, funded, and operated by their constituent member states. While most of
these agencies were founded by a small number of countries, their membership
increased significantly after World War II when European imperialism came to an
end. Today, membership in the United Nations and its specialized agencies is
widely regarded as a stamp of nationhood.
Many international voluntary organizations have also been created. They are
also composed of national associations representing different countries. As with
official intergovernment agencies, these organizations are funded by their constitu
ent national associations. In addition to these international organizations, nonprofit
organizations that were originally established in Europe and North America have
extended their services to other countries. One example is the American organiza
tion Alcoholics Anonymous, which now exists worldwide. Its activities will be
discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
This section provides a brief descriptive overview of the different official and
voluntary organizations involved in the field. As will be seen, a large number of
official intergovernment organizations have been created, and it is only possible
Internotionol Collaboration 205
to briefly summarize their activities. The number of voluntary organizations

engaged in international social welfare is also very large, and information about
them is limited. For this reason, only a few will be highlighted to provide insights
into the way they operate.
Evolution of International Collaboration
Walter Friedlander (1975) reports that international collaboration in social

welfare first began in the mid-19th century when the leaders of European and North
American philanthropic organizations began to meet to exchange ideas and expe
riences. Later, these organizations held international conferences at which reports
on national activities were given. Most of these meetings were held in European
cities but later were hosted by American cities as well. Among these meetings were
the International Congress of Charities, Corrections, and Philanthropies; the Uni
versal Congress for the Improvement of the Fate of the Blind; and the International
Congress of Private and Public Relief.
The first permanent international organization in the field of social welfare was
the Red Cross. The organization was founded by Henri Dunant, a Swiss banker,
who was so appalled by the treatment of prisoners and the wounded at the battle
of Solferino in northern Italy in 1859 that he began to campaign for an international
convention to protect the rights of people affected by wars. As a result of his efforts,
a number of governments signed the Geneva Convention of 1864, which now
regulates the treatment of prisoners, the provision of medical treatment to the
wounded, and the rights of civilians in times of war. An international committee
based in Geneva was created to ensure compliance with the Geneva Convention.
The International Red Cross is the direct successor of this committee. Since the
creation of the Red Cross, many countries have signed the Geneva Convention and
national Red Cross organizations have been created throughout the world. In
addition to its wartime humanitarian activities, the organization is also involved
in disaster relief, youth work, accident prevention, and health education.
A major development in the field of international social welfare was the creation
in 1928 of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) through the
leadership of Rene Sand, a professor at the University of Brussels in Belgium. The
organization is composed largely of representatives of voluntary organizations.
Closely related to the creation of ICSW in 1928 was the establishment of the
International Committee of Schools of Social Work in 1929. The committee was
later renamed the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW).
Another international organization in the field of social work is the International
Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), which was established in 1956 to represent
the interests of professional social workers at the international level (Healy,
1995b).
During the middle decades of this century, the governments of the European
imperial powers played a decisive role in promoting international social welfare.
The British were perhaps the most active, creating official mechanisms by which
innovations in social welfare could be transferred throughout their empire. Lucy
20ό APPLIED INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
Mair (1944) reports that various committees were created in the Colonial Office
in London in the 1930s to consider ways in which the social services could be
expanded in the colonial territories. One of the first of these committees was
concerned with education. Although education had historically been provided by
missionaries, the committee proposed that it should become a government
responsibility. As a result of its activities, funds were provided through the
British Colonial Welfare and Development Acts to provide public education in
the colonies.
There were similar developments in the field of social work services. A commit-
tee appointed by the British Colonial Secretary to advise on the development of
the social services was directly responsible for the creation of the first social
welfare departments in the colonies. As was noted in Chapter 9 of this book, social
workers who staffed the welfare departments in West African countries such as
Ghana were responsible for formulating the social development approach, which
was believed to be preferable to traditional remedial social services. However, it
should be noted that these developments were not always the result of an altruistic
concern for the welfare of colonized people. For example, the creation of social
welfare programs in the British West Indies was largely motivated by civil
disturbances in the years before World War II. In many other cases, social welfare
services were introduced to deal with conspicuous urban nuisances such as beg-
gars, delinquents, and street children (Midgley, 1981).
Official intergovernment collaboration in the field of international social wel-
fare began with the League of Nations, the forerunner to the present United
Nations. The league was established to promote peace and enhance international
collaboration between governments at the end of World War I. Friedlander (1975)
reports that the league created a division known as the Section on Social Questions
and Opium Traffic, which was concerned with prostitution, drug abuse, child labor,
and the exploitation of women and children for immoral purposes. There was, at
the time, much concern about the so-called white slave traffic. The league encour-
aged member states to introduce legislation to deal with these issues. It also created
a separate health organization, which sought to improve international public
health, and it initiated relief activities for refugees fleeing persecution from the
new Soviet government. Another major development was the creation of the
International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1919, which has actively promoted
international collaboration in the fields of labor relations, employment conditions,
and social security.
The creation of the United Nations in 1945 was a major development in
international social welfare. Article 55 of the United Nations charter specifically
directs the organization to promote social progress by fostering international
collaboration in social welfare. Over the years, the United Nations and its special-
ized agencies have engaged in numerous activities that have had a profound effect
on social welfare in many different countries. The international spread of social
work, global reductions in infant mortality, the improvement of public health
in many parts of the world, the adoption of social security by many countries,
the promotion of human rights, the protection of refugees, and many other
achievements can be directly attributed to the organization's diverse interna-
tional programs.
International Collaboration 207
Official Intergovernment Agencies
Today, a large number of official intergovernment organizations are concerned

with the international promotion of social welfare. Some, such as the United
Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), have a direct and specific social welfare
mission, while others, such as the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO),
affect people's welfare indirectly. Of course, the United Nations itself has many
functions such as peace keeping and the promotion of sound intergovernment
relations that also have an indirect impact on human well-being. Most intergov
ernment collaboration in social welfare takes place through the United Nations and
its specialized agencies. The other major contributor is the World Bank, which was
not originally intended to be involved in the promotion of social welfare but which
has funded many developmental projects in the Third World. Various regional
intergovernment organizations also engage in international social welfare activi
ties. They include the United Nations regional economic and social commissions,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Arab
League, and the Organization for African Unity (OAU) to name but a few.
The United Nations has been involved in a great variety of international initiatives
in the field of social welfare. Through the Economic and Social Council and its various
committees and commissions, the organization has undertaken research into inter
national social conditions, documented the way social programs operate in many
parts of the world, engaged in policy development in diverse social fields, encour
aged the adoption of new social programs, and provided extensive technical
assistance in social welfare.
The organization has, in particular, played a major role in promoting the
diffusion of social welfare policies and programs. In the 1950s, it fostered the
spread of professional social work around the world. At the same time, it encour
aged the international adoption of community development. In the 1960s and
1970s, it promoted social planning as an integral part of national development
planning. In the 1970s and 1980s, it fostered the spread of popular participation in
development. In the 1990s, it led an international effort to promote social devel
opment as a viable approach in social welfare.
The United Nations uses various policy instruments to promote international
collaboration in social welfare. United Nations' documents in the field have been
widely consulted by those concerned with social welfare. In addition to its
statistical compendia and specialized reports on a large variety of social topics, its
regular Report on the World Social Situation is an indispensable resource. In
addition to its documentary resources, the United Nations employs conventions,
international conferences, designated years and decades, and technical assistance
to achieve its goals. For example, the United Nations Conference of Ministers
Responsible for Social Welfare, held in New York in 1968, played a major role in
defining the scope of social work services and promoting a developmental ap
proach in social welfare. Its conferences on women, population, environmental
protection, and children have been equally important in disseminating new ideas,
promoting policy innovations, and enhancing international awareness of pressing
social issues. The World Summit on Social Development, held in Copenhagen in
1995, has given impetus to recent efforts to promote the social development
approach to social welfare.
United Nations' conventions are also used to promote social welfare at the
international level. One example is the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child,
which has been ratified by more than 130 countries. This convention defines
international standards of protection and service provision in the field of child
welfare. The United Nations' designated years and decades function to increase
public awareness of important social issues. For example, the Decade of Women
(1975-1985) was designed to draw attention to international efforts to enhance the
well-being of women. Similarly, as Lynne Healy (1995b) reports, the proposed
International Year of Older Persons, scheduled for 1999, is intended to "recognize
humanity's demographic coming of age and the promise it holds" (p. 1503).
Other intergovernment organizations within the United Nations system include
UNICEF; the World Health Organization (WHO); the United Nations Develop
ment Program (UNDP); the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR); ILO; the United Nations Fund for Population Activities
(UNFPA); FAO; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). All are specialized agencies of the United Nations.
As their names suggest, these different organizations have functions that affect
different groups of people or different fields of social welfare. UNICEF, ILO, and
UNHCR focus their activities directly on specific population groups and are
primarily concerned with promoting the welfare of these groups. WHO, FAO, and
UNESCO are concerned with promoting, respectively, improvements in health,
nutrition, and education for all people on a global scale.
These agencies work directly with national governments and encourage their
member states to adopt approaches that will foster social welfare goals. However,
they are not equally effective and because many governments have been unable to
pay their dues, most of the intergovernment agencies have experienced funding
difficulties. They are also sometimes embroiled in political disputes. For example,
UNFPA came under pressure from the government of the United States in the
mid-1980s to oppose abortion. When the fund did not comply, the U.S. government
stopped paying its dues to the organization. However, the ban was reversed by the
Clinton administration in 1993.
Apart from the United Nations itself, three of its specialized agencies are most
frequently associated with the promotion of international social welfare. These are
UNICEF, ILO, and UNHCR.
The role of UNICEF in promoting the welfare of children at the international
level is well known and highly respected. The organization was created in 1946
and was originally known as the United Nations International Children's Emer
gency Fund because of its programs for children displaced by the war. It was
initially intended that UNICEF operate for only a few years, but its work was soon
recognized to be sufficiently important for it to be made a permanent intergovern
ment organization. In 1953, the United Nations voted to allocate funds on a regular
basis to support UNICEF's activities. Although the organization was originally
concerned with promoting traditional approaches to child welfare, it has increas
ingly focused attention on nutrition, maternal and child health, and policies that
enhance the well-being of women.
ILO was created in 1919 to enhance labor relations, improve working condi
tions, and foster the spread of social security around the world. Like the United
Nations, ILO produces reports, statistical compendia, and other documents that are
widely used. Its journal, International Labour Review, is one of the leading
publications in the field. It has also secured international support for many
conventions dealing with labor questions. Its conventions on social security have
been widely used to set international standards in the field. In the 1960s, the
organization became interested in fostering employment opportunities in Third
World countries. Its numerous research studies on the subject and the World
Employment Conference of 1976 concluded that traditional models of economic
development were unlikely to create jobs in the formal sectors of Third World
economies on a scale large enough to eradicate poverty. These events resulted in
the promotion of the basic needs approach, which has focused greater attention on
social welfare issues in the development context (Streeten et al., 1981).
UNHCR evolved out of international efforts at the end of World War I to help
refugees fleeing from the newly formed Soviet Union. However, its more imme
diate precursor was the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
(UNRRA), which was created by the Allied powers in 1943 to assist the people of
war-ravaged nations. At the end of the war, the organization launched major relief
programs in countries devastated by the conflict. In 1947, UNRRA's responsibili
ties were assumed by the International Refugee Organization (IRO), which was in
turn replaced by UNHCR in 1951. Today, UNHCR is the primary international
organization concerned with promoting the well-being of refugees throughout the
world.
As was mentioned earlier, the World Bank is another intergovernment organiza
tion that is involved in international social welfare. Although the World Bank is
not a part of the United Nations system, it frequently collaborates with specialized
United Nations agencies such as UNICEF, WHO, and UNDP. Like the United
Nations, the World Bank was created at the end of World War II, but its purpose
was to provide resources for the reconstruction of the economies of war-damaged
nations and to promote economic development. Although the World Bank is
primarily involved in lending money for development projects, it has also been
extensively engaged in policy innovations in the field of health, housing, commu
nity development, education, and poverty alleviation. During the presidency of
Robert McNamara in the 1970s, the World Bank played a major role in promoting
social development in Third World countries. Many of its publications, such as The
Assault on World Poverty (World Bank, 1975) advocated the use of developmental
social policies suited to the needs of Third World countries. However, the World
Bank's role in development has not been unanimously viewed as a positive one.
Indeed, as will be shown later in this chapter, the organization's international role
has been widely criticized.
In addition to these intergovernment organizations, many national governments
also engage in international social welfare activities. The United States and many
other industrialized nations have international aid programs that allocate resources
for health, education, population, and various other social programs. They have
also created international volunteer programs such as the Peace Corps, which is
extensively engaged in social development projects. However, in most cases, aid
programs are intended to promote the interests of the donor countries. While it is
true that some donor countries place less emphasis on diplomatic and other
advantages when providing aid, much bilateral aid is motivated by these concerns.
It is also the case that only a small proportion of bilateral aid supports social
welfare programs. Indeed, most aid is designed to promote commercial objectives
including the sale of industrial and agricultural equipment and, sadly, weapons and
military technologies. For these and other reasons, the aid activities of national
government will not be given much prominence in this chapter. However, the issue
of aid will be discussed again in the final section.
T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Voluntary S e c t o r
Unfortunately, the work of international voluntary organizations has not been

extensively studied, and information about the myriad organizations that are
engaged in some form of international social welfare is limited. While the activities
of the leading organizations in the field are well known, there are many others that
engage in international social welfare but whose services are poorly documented.
As Lester Salamon (1995) points out, a great deal of additional research is needed
if the diverse activities of these many organizations are to be properly understood.
Three types of international voluntary organizations may be identified. The first
are representative international organizations. They are composed of constituent
national-level associations, whose interests and activities they represent. They include
the Red Cross and ICSW. The second are the international professional associations,
which represent professional groups engaged in social welfare in different countries.
The third are national-level organizations, which extend their work to other
countries. This is the largest and least researched group of organizations.
ICSW is among the most prominent of the representative international volun
tary organizations. Like the United Nations, ICSW is composed of member
associations from many different countries. As was noted earlier, the organization
was founded in 1928. It was originally known as the International Conference on
Social Welfare, and while it was initially dominated by European and North
American social workers, it now includes those who are engaged in social welfare
activities whether or not they are social workers. It also has representatives from
countries in many different parts of the world. Today, it is widely regarded as
representing the formal, nonprofit sector throughout the world. In many countries,
its national-level associations are composed of representatives of voluntary organi
zations such as the Councils of Social Service, which exist in many Anglophone
nations. The organization also uses its position to influence government social
policies, and it works closely with the United Nations and its specialized agencies.
It participates in major international meetings such as the 1995 World Summit on
Social Development and, in addition, organizes its own biannual international
conferences as well as regional meetings in different parts of the world. Its
headquarters are in Vienna, Austria.
Many international professional associations represent the interests of profes
sionals who are engaged in social welfare. As noted earlier, two organizations of
this kind are IFSW and IASSW. IFSW is concerned with promoting social work
International Collaboration
as a profession and with representing the views of social workers to both interna
tional bodies and governments around the world. It promotes the creation of
national professional associations and encourages international exchanges be
tween social workers. It has also been active in formulating international ethical
standards and has campaigned for social workers who are held as political prison
ers in different countries. Currently, IFSW is composed of member associations in
55 countries.
IASSW promotes professional social work education around the world. As was
noted in Chapter 8, there are than 1,700 professional schools of social work in
more than 100 countries in the world today (Hokenstad & Kendall, 1995). How
ever, as Healy (1995b) reports, only 433 member schools in 77 countries formally
belonged to the association in 1994. Nevertheless, the association plays a major
role in fostering the international expansion of social work education and in
encouraging international discussion on issues of social work education. It works
closely with IFSW and ICSW and jointly sponsors the journal International Social
Work, which contains many useful articles about social work and social welfare in
different countries. It also holds a biannual conference at which social work
educators from all over the world discuss critical issues in social work education.
National-level voluntary organizations that engage in international activities are
the largest and least documented group of organizations concerned with interna
tional social welfare. The include some very well known nonprofit organizations
such as Save the Children Fund, the Young Men's and Women's Christian Asso
ciations (YMCA and YWCA), and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Brian Smith
(1990) reports that more than 4,600 voluntary organizations in the industrial
nations have expanded their activities to the developing countries. These organi
zations include well-established charities, foundations, and development groups.
The number of nonprofit organizations involved in developmental activities in
Third World countries has increased significantly in recent times. One of the largest
and best known is the British organization OXFAM.
Religious and missionary associations are also involved in international social
welfare and developmental activities. Some are large missionary and church
organizations, which have sizable operations. Others are smaller in scope and are
usually supported by lesser known denominations. Religious organizations operate
a great variety of social programs including schools, clinics, hospitals, women's
associations, day care centers, rural community development projects, and even
universities. The work of these organizations deserves closer scrutiny because they
contribute significantly to the promotion of people's well-being in many parts of
the Third World.
In addition to expanding their activities into the Third World, some European
and North American voluntary organizations have become active in promoting the
expansion of the nonprofit sector in the former communist nations. As was noted
in Chapter 4, the governments of some of these countries have actively encouraged
the development of the voluntary sector. For example, by 1992, the government of
Hungary registered no fewer than 11,000 voluntary associations.
An example of how a voluntary organization created in one country expands to
others is provided in an interesting account of the global spread of the self-help
organization AA (Makela, 1996). Founded in the United States in 1935 by two
alcoholics to provide an informal opportunity for people with drinking problems
to discuss their problems and obtain mutual support, the number of meeting groups
grew steadily over the years. Largely as a result of informal contacts, similar
groups eventually emerged in Canada, Mexico, and Europe. After World War II,
the need to coordinate the activities of different national groups was felt, and at a
convention held in Cleveland in 1950, it was decided to create an international
forum for discussing international activities. Although AA has preferred to operate
internationally as a loose federation of national groups, it has continued to expand
and today has nearly 2 million members organized into more than 92,000 meeting
groups in 39 countries.
EXAMPLES OF INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL WELFARE COLLABORATION
Over the years, official intergovernment organizations and international voluntary

organizations have contributed greatly to fostering international collaboration in
social welfare. These organizations have encouraged the governments of different
countries to adopt policies and implement programs that have a positive impact on
people's well-being. They have also supported nongovernment programs in these
countries. Through their activities, information about social policies and programs
has been diffused internationally and new opportunities for debating issues of
international social welfare have been created. The promotion of human well-being
has transcended national boundaries, and international collaboration in social
welfare is now given more emphasis than before. Today, efforts to enhance people's
welfare has acquired a much needed international dimension.
To illustrate efforts to promote human well-being at the international level, three
different fields of international social welfare activity will be briefly described.
All deal with social issues that are of concern to the international community, and
all three have elicited responses that have involved different organizations and groups
at the national and international levels. The first discusses international efforts to
promote the well-being of women. The second addresses international attempts to
respond to the needs of refugees. The third discusses international collaboration
in the field of social security.
Promoting the Weil-Being of Women
International activities to promote the well-being of the world's women have

undergone a major change in recent decades. The paternalism that characterized
previous international policies and programs has largely been replaced by a new
activist approach, which is less concerned with the provision of services and
focuses instead on organizing and empowering women to work for improvements
in their own welfare. It is also concerned with campaigning for the recognition of
women's rights as inviolable human rights.
As Caroline Moser (1989) argues, government and voluntary services for

women have traditionally been concerned with narrowly defined welfare activities.
It was previously noted in this chapter that among the earliest international social
programs were the League of Nations' efforts to eradicate international prostitution
or the white slave traffic, as it was known. In the 1950s, as the United Nations
promoted the spread of community development throughout the world, the creation
of mother's clubs, sewing circles, and maternal education classes was encouraged.
Many governments created women's sections in their welfare ministries to admin
ister these programs. However, as Moser suggests, these programs reinforced
traditional patriarchal values and affirmed women's roles as mothers, wives, and
housekeepers. They seldom addressed pressing issues such as violence toward
women; the feminization of poverty; the subjugation of women; and institutional
ized discrimination against women in education, employment, and the workplace.
Inspired by a feminist analysis of the pervasiveness of patriarchy, the women's
movement has engaged in international efforts to promote the well-being of women
through empowerment and the enshrinement of women's rights. These efforts have
been led by women's groups, feminist scholars, journalists, and officials in inter
government agencies. Although organized at the national level, these groups have
sought to use international forums to achieve these goals. They have dramatized
the extent of women's suffering in many countries where violence toward women
is institutionalized, where opportunities for women are limited, and where the
rights of women are regularly abused. They have also drawn attention to the fact
that women are disproportionately affected by poverty, ill heath, illiteracy, and
unemployment. Although these efforts have not brought about a revolutionary
improvement in the position of women, women's issues are now given much more
prominence in international social welfare than before, and traditional approaches
have been transformed.
The women's movement has been quite effective in securing international
support for its efforts from intergovernment organizations such as the United
Nations. Various international meetings, conventions, and official publications
have endorsed the campaign to promote the notion of women's rights as human
rights and to commit governments around the world to ratifying this idea. As Janice
Wood Wetzel (1993) suggests, the idea of women's rights as human rights is an
effective means of securing international support for efforts to improve the welfare
of women. Because ratification of this concept by national governments has legal
implications, it can result in significant changes to existing practices such as
violence toward women, which is not treated as a criminal offense in many
countries.
Several international events have been sponsored by the United Nations to
promote the notion of women's rights as human rights. Although the United
Nations' Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 did not specifically
address the position of women, it enshrined equal civil and political rights irre
spective of race, religion, national origin, and gender and is widely regarded as the
beginning of the campaign for the recognition of women's rights. However, it was
more than a quarter century later, in 1975 at the First World Conference on Women
held in Mexico City, that the idea of women's rights specifically emerged with
reference to discussions on inequality, discrimination, and domestic violence. As
a result of these deliberations, the conference called on national governments to
eliminate abuse and discrimination against women. The conference also resulted
in the promulgation by the United Nations in 1979 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The convention
established international standards in terms of which governments commit them
selves to eradicating gender discrimination. It has been ratified by 147 countries,
and it now serves as an international "Bill of Rights" for women (Wetzel, 1993).
The Second World Conference on Women, held in Copenhagen in 1980, en
dorsed the convention and called on governments to ratify and implement its
principles. The Third World Conference on Women, held in Nairobi in 1985,
produced a policy paper known as the Forward Looking Strategies, which urged
governments to address specific areas of concern for women including poverty, ill
health, education, and violence. However, at the Fourth World Conference on
Women, held in Beijing in 1995, assessments of progress tended to be gloomy.
Many participants believed that there had only been limited gains for women, and
it was generally felt that poverty, ill health, and illiteracy continued to be major
problems for women around the world. However, there was satisfaction that
women had achieved recognition for their demands at the World Conference on
Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993. As a result of their campaigns, women's
groups succeeded in having women's rights recognized as an integral part of the
declaration of universal human rights. The specific recognition that violence
against women constitutes an abuse of human rights was also hailed as a major
achievement. With the adoption of these principles, the notion of women's rights
as human rights is now accepted at the international level.
While it is clear that international legal instruments do not automatically result
in the eradication of violence and discrimination against women, they support
other efforts to improve women's conditions. The repeal of laws that previously
permitted spousal abuse in the industrial countries was an important step in
securing protection for women against domestic violence. Nevertheless, direct
action to address poverty, ill health, illiteracy, and the other pressing needs of
women around the world is also needed. Fortunately, both intergovernment and
voluntary agencies have been active at the international level to address these
needs.
Women's organizations have emerged in many different countries both at the
national and local level. They may consist of grassroots, community groups of
women who undertake cooperative economic or social projects in both urban and
rural areas. They may be composed of educated middle-class women who seek to
advocate on behalf of women's issues or to participate in the formal political
process to effect change. Women's groups may also be engaged in service delivery,
organizing a variety of health, maternal, educational, and other social programs.
Increasingly, women's groups cooperate to transcend class and ethnic divisions.
While their cumulative impact has not been properly assessed, they have undoubt
edly enhanced public awareness of the determination of women to change existing
patriarchal attitudes and institutions and bring about significant improvements in
women's welfare.
These groups are affected and supported by the international women's move
ment. They may be directly linked to international women's associations or they
may indirectly benefit from the changes that have been brought about by their
campaigns. As Moser (1989) reports, international groups such as Development
Alternatives With Women for a New Era (DAWN), created prior to the Nairobi
conference in 1985, have effectively represented the women's movement at the
international level. The impact of the women's movement on intergovernment
organizations such as UNICEF, UNDP, and the World Bank has also resulted in
new programs, reorientations in aid policies, and increased pressures on member
states to enhance the position of women.
While some assessments of these efforts have been quite pessimistic (Staudt,
1990), there are indications that international efforts to promote the well-being of
women have resulted in tangible gains. As was shown in earlier chapters of this
book, maternal and child health conditions have improved in many countries,
school attendance among girls has increased throughout the world, and life expec
tancy for women has risen. Improvements of this kind have even been recorded in
the Middle East where the position of women is far from satisfactory (United
Nations, 1993b, 1995). On the other hand, progress in eradicating poverty, violence
against women, dowry, arranged marriages, and genital mutilation has been slow.
Continued efforts on the part of women's groups to influence governments,
intergovernment organizations, and the aid agencies face obstacles but must be
pursued if continued progress is to be made.
Responding to the Refugee Crisis
Many millions of people have fled their homes and communities because of
violence arising from war, civil conflict, or ethnic hatred, or because of natural
disasters, famines, and environmental destruction. Those who flee across national
boundaries are known as refugees, while those who relocate within their countries
are known as displaced persons (Ahearn, 1995). Although international refugees
usually attract more attention from the international community, it is recognized
that the problem of internal displacement is also a serious one that requires
concerted international action.
International intervention is needed because the refugee problem is today
endemic and persistent. While the problem was previously associated with major
wars, the pervasiveness of armed conflict has created a situation in which people
in many parts of the world are being uprooted. Also, while refugees previously
returned to their homes after hostilities had ceased, many are now permanently
displaced because of continued political instability. In addition, because of the
sheer size of the problem, many believe that local efforts to assist refugees are
likely to be ineffective.
There are no accurate data on the numbers of refugees and displaced people in
the world, but estimates published by UNHCR (1995) suggest that the figure is in
the region of 17 million. In addition, as many as 24 million people may be
internally displaced (U.S. Committee for Refugees, 1993). Of the total number of
refugees, about 5.6 million or 32% come from African countries, and 5.5 million
or 3 1 % come from the Middle East. Europe has about 3.2 million refugees (or 19%
of the total) and Asia, the world's most populous region, has 2.7 million refugees
or about 16% of the total. The remainder are to be found in the Americas.
'2)6 APPLIED INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE
The number of refugees has increased rapidly over the years. In the mid-1960s,
there were probably about 1.4 million refugees in the world. By 1970, the figure
had increased to 2.5 million, and by 1980 it exceeded 14 million. While UNHCR
(1995) reports that more than 2 million refugees returned to their homes in 1992,
many more live in permanent or extended exile. In some regions such as the
Middle East and Africa, where the problem is most acute, sizable numbers of
long-term refugees live in refugee camps operated by UNHCR. In some refugee
camps in the Middle East, a generation of children have been reared in conditions
of statelessness.
Historically, people displaced by conflict or natural disasters often fled to their
relatives and friends in other localities. Those who had no supports of this kind
were dependent on charity, the benevolence of strangers, or their own resources.
The idea that international efforts were needed to assist displaced people is a
relatively recent one, which began with the programs provided by the Red Cross
to protect civilians during times of war and to provide relief on a limited scale.
Intergovernment activities can be traced back to the League of Nations, which, as
was noted earlier, created an office to assist Russian refugees in 1921.
However, it was only during World War II that the first intergovernment program
designed to deal with the problem of refugees on a global scale was initiated. This
program was UNRRA, established in Washington, D.C. in 1943. Although UN
RRA was supported by 44 countries, it evolved out of efforts by the American and
British governments to prepare to assist the people of the defeated Axis countries.
At the end of the war, the agency not only provided emergency food, housing, and
medical supplies to the occupied territories but assumed responsibility for the
restoration of public utilities such as drinking water, electricity, transportation, and
sanitary services. Friedlander (1975) has shown that UNRRA's programs involved a
massive logistical operation that cost large sums of money. However, it saved the
lives of millions of people who were displaced by the war.
As was noted earlier in this chapter, UNRRA's programs were terminated in
1947 and another agency that focused more specifically on the resettlement of
refugees was established. This was IRO, which was, in turn, replaced by UNHCR
in 1951. Although it was originally believed that UNHCR would not be needed on
a permanent basis, the agency has not only continued its work but has faced
increasing demands for its services as the refugee problem has become more acute.
Unfortunately, resources to meet these needs have not been adequate for the task.
Although many nongovernment organizations are now also involved in refugee
relief work, they too have found it difficult to cope with the huge demands for
assistance that have accompanied displacement in different parts of the world.
Today, the international refugee problem has reached crisis proportions, and it
is clear that greater international efforts to address the problem are needed.
Although some refugees travel long distances, the vast majority find protection in
neighboring countries, which are unable to assist them. Indeed, because many
refugees come from poor countries, they often locate just across national borders
to other poor countries. For example, large numbers of refugees today have found
shelter in low-income countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zaire,
which are unable to support them (Ahearn, 1995). Many governments, including
those of several European nations, have also become unwilling to receive refugees.
Despite the fact that they are signatories to international refugee conventions, some
have sought to discourage settlement and some have even engaged in forcible
repatriation. During the recent conflict in Rwanda, UNHCR was compelled to beg
neighboring governments to allow desperately frightened civilians to enter their
territories. In Europe, electoral considerations and racist attacks on refugees of
color have resulted in the imposition of more stringent criteria for asylum seekers.
While UNHCR has traditionally provided services to refugees, its ability to
respond effectively has become increasingly strained, and this has placed a grow
ing burden on host governments, particularly in areas of widespread conflict such
as Africa and the Middle East. Budgetary allocations to UNHCR have shrunk, and
as the agency has been faced with new incidents of displacement, it has simply not
been able to cope. In this situation, it is important that new international efforts be
made to respond to the refugee crisis. There is widespread agreement that the
reactive policies and programs that have characterized many international refugee
efforts over the years are ineffective. While emergency relief and accommodation
in traditional refugee camps will still be needed, longer-term solutions that involve
greater international collaboration are also needed. In particular, programs that
seek to prevent displacement should be emphasized.
The idea that prevention is preferable to emergency relief is hardly new. UNHCR
has long campaigned for proactive policies that seek to identify potential areas of
conflict and other causes of displacement and to intervene promptly to preempt
the dislocation of large numbers of people. Unfortunately, these efforts have not
been successful. As the recent Bosnian conflict revealed, the international commu
nity was unwilling to commit the necessary military resources to prevent large-
scale suffering. While it ultimately intervened, its recalcitrance had cost hundreds
of thousands of lives and caused huge social and economic losses. In this climate,
it is unlikely that effective global intervention to respond effectively to the
international refugee crisis will emerge. However, it is clear that as the problem
continues to escalate, international action of this kind will be needed. The alterna
tive is greater long-term suffering for millions of innocent people.
Collaboration in Social Security
The term social security is today used loosely to refer to a variety of income
security, health care, and other programs operated by governments to promote the
well-being of their citizens. In most countries, social security is primarily con
cerned with income support, and it is with reference to income programs that the
term is most widely employed. Indeed, the term was first officially used in the title
of the Social Security Act of 1935 in the United States to refer specifically to
income security programs for elderly persons, the survivors of protected employ
ees, and those who are invalided while in employment. Subsequently, the term was
adopted by other countries and by intergovernment agencies such as ILO. Later,
the term was broadened to include other forms of income protection, such as social
assistance. The core income programs of social security today are social insurance,
social assistance, employer liability, and demogrant social allowances (Midgley,
1984b). However, in some countries, particularly in Latin America, the term is also
used to refer to health care programs provided by social security organizations.
Social security programs originated in the industrial nations. Social assistance,

which is the oldest form of social security, is based on an income test and is often
traced back to the Poor Laws that were enacted in Britain in the early 1600s. Of
course, its origins are older. As was noted in Chapter 4, social insurance emerged
in Germany in the latter half of the 19th century. This approach is based on regular
contributions paid by workers, which are used to meet contingencies when they
arise. As its name suggests, the employer liability approach obligates employers
to provide benefits to workers who meet certain criteria. Social allowances are the
least common form of social security. They provide benefits to defined population
groups from general government revenues without imposing an income test. They
were introduced in many European countries during the middle decades of this
century to provide benefits to families with children.
Today, social security is central to governments' welfare effort in many coun
tries. Social security is the largest single item of public expenditure in many
industrial and former communist nations, and its share of these expenditures has
also increased in many developing nations. In many industrial nations, social
security is closely identified with the notion of the welfare state. For many people,
social security embodies the notion of collective responsibility for social welfare.
The growth and international diffusion of social security over the past century
has been remarkable. Although social assistance programs had previously been
introduced into some of the colonies by the European powers, the internationali
zation of social security took place during this century. Its spread was not hap
hazard but owed much to the efforts of international organizations. The major
organizations involved in the internationalization of social security are ILO and
the International Social Security Association (ISSA). The former European colo
nial powers, particularly Britain and France, also played a major role in promoting
the international adoption of social security. In more recent years, the World Bank
has also become involved in the field. Social security thus offers a good example
of international collaboration in social welfare.
As was noted earlier in this chapter, ILO was created in 1919 to promote
improved labor relations and employment conditions throughout the world. It has
also been an effective advocate of the adoption of social security and particularly
of social insurance. Its constitution specifically charges the organization with
"the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out
of employment [and] provision for old age and injury" (International Labor Office,
1984, p. 163). When ILO was founded, only a few member states had social security
programs. In its early years, the organization actively promoted the adoption of
social insurance among the industrial nations. Following World War II, the organi
zation encouraged the spread of social security to the newly independent develop
ing countries and also broadened its initial focus on social insurance to include
social assistance and other provisions. Its Income Security Recommendations (No.
67) of 1944 embodied this broader view and formed the basis for the Social
Security (Minimum Standards) Convention of 1952, which has since become the
primary international instrument for the promotion of social security through
out the world. The convention transcended earlier agreements that had been
concerned with particular branches of social protection, and it expanded coverage
to nine contingencies. It also sought to extend income protection to the population
at large.
The convention has been ratified by many countries, and while it binds them to
provide social security, it does not require that all nine contingencies be covered.
It is for this reason that social security programs in few developing countries today
provide unemployment benefit. Nevertheless, as a result of the ratification of the
convention, and extensive technical assistance provided by ILO, social security
has spread rapidly around the world. The internationalization of social security
was also facilitated by ISSA, which was founded by ILO in 1927 to engage in
policy and administrative development and to serve as an international forum for
social security administrators. ISSA publishes many reports on different aspects
of social security, provides technical assistance, and hosts international meetings
in the field.
In addition to the work of these two major international organizations, the
European imperial powers also promoted the spread of social security in their
former colonial territories. France promoted a social insurance approach (Mouton,
1975), while Britain encouraged the adoption of compulsory savings schemes
known as provident funds (Dixon, 1989). Social insurance programs in the French
territories were remarkably uniform, and in addition to providing retirement,
survivor, and disability benefits, they paid family allowances to insured workers
with children. The British colonial authorities did not believe that social insurance
schemes were appropriate to the needs of their colonies, and for this reason, they
encouraged the creation of provident funds for workers in full-time employment
in the modern sector of the economy.
As a result of these efforts, most countries now have social security programs.
While social security had only been established in a handful of European and other
industrial nations by the turn of this century, 58 countries had introduced social
security by 1950. This number increased to 120 countries by 1967. By 1981, 139
nations had created social security programs (International Labor Office, 1984).
The spread of social security has been particularly marked in the developing
countries. Although the British and French governments promoted the adoption of
social security in their territories, ILO was often the primary agent for the
internationalization of social security, particularly social insurance. The organiza
tion continues to foster the spread of social insurance today. For example, a new
social insurance programs was recently created by the government of Zimbabwe
with technical assistance from ILO (Midgley & Kaseke, 1996).
For many advocates of state welfare, the diffusion of social security is a major
achievement and an example of what international collaboration can achieve. With
the assistance of international organizations and the former colonial powers, many
countries now offer income protection to their workers. The adoption of social
security by countries of very different economic, social, and cultural charac
teristics reveals that international effort can effectively promote the enhancement
of social welfare around the world.
Despite the significance of these developments, the internationalization of social
security has not been an unqualified success. As was noted in Chapter 6, the spread
of social security has been accompanied by serious problems. It is now recognized
that while social insurance may be suited to the industrial nations, it is inappropri
ate to the needs of those developing countries where only a small proportion of the
labor force is employed in the modern sector of the economy. Consequently,
coverage is limited and serious problems of inequity have arisen (Midgley, 1984b).
In many countries, the spread of social security has been accompanied by admin
istrative problems, which have not been effectively addressed. This problem is
particularly acute in Latin America where political patronage, wastage, and cor
ruption have exacerbated matters (Mesa-Lago, 1989, 1994). In other cases, the
introduction of social security has raised questions about its long-term impact on
economic growth (World Bank, 1994). Unfortunately, the successful internation
alization of social security has been viewed with complacency, and adequate steps
have not been taken to address these problems. As these problems have become
more acute, other intergovernment organizations, such as the World Bank, are
actively promoting the privatization of social security. Some countries such as
Chile, Argentina, and Peru have already taken this step. Unless a concerted
international effort is made to remedy these difficulties, it is likely that more
governments will follow the trend toward privatization and abandon their commit
ment to social security.
ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL WELFARE COLLABORATION
The preceding examples illustrate the progress that has been made by official
intergovernment bodies, international voluntary organizations, and national gov
ernments to enhance human well-being on a global scale. Of course, many other
examples could have been given. International activities are now common in many
fields of social welfare. However, the three examples provided earlier are broadly
representative of these activities. They also provide insights into the effectiveness
of international collaboration and of the issues arising from international social
welfare efforts.
While there is no doubt that international collaboration has made a major
contribution to the promotion of people's well-being, much more needs to be done
to foster mutual cooperation and ensure that international activities bring positive
results. There has been a tendency in the literature to emphasize the achievements
of international collaboration without paying adequate attention to the work that
still needs to be done. A more critical attitude is needed not only to assess progress
on a regular basis but also to address the criticisms made by those who do not
believe that international collaboration in social welfare has been an unqualified
success.
First, one area of concern is the effectiveness of international collaboration in
social welfare. As was shown in the three examples given earlier, international
efforts have not always been effective. In some cases, these efforts have resulted
in significant improvements, while in others, only marginal successes have been
recorded. International endeavors in the field of women's welfare have resulted in
some tangible gains, but on the other hand, progress in addressing other needs such
as violence against women has been slow. International efforts to assist refugees
were quite successful at the end of World War II, but as the size of the problem
increased, and as resources for international agencies such as UNHCR dwindled,
International Collaboration 2?1
international efforts have been less effective. In some cases, such as social security,
effectiveness has been hampered by unforeseen difficulties arising from the inap
propriateness of policy transfers. Similar difficulties characterize many other
international activities in the field of social welfare.
A proper assessment of these difficulties can lead to remedial action and greater
attempts to improve efficacy. In many cases, effectiveness could be greatly en
hanced with increased resources. However, the prospect of securing additional
budgetary appropriations for international social welfare programs is limited in
the present international economic and political climate. On the other hand, it is
possible to introduce low-cost policies and programs that optimize resources. The
work of UNICEF reveals that a shift from remedial child welfare programs to
community-based interventions can significantly reduce costs and, at the same
time, address the most pressing social problems. As was noted previously in this
book, low-cost oral rehydration therapy, community infant feeding programs, and
women's education have brought about significant improvements in child welfare
around the world (United Nations Children's Fund, 1995). Similarly, as the 1996
World Conference on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children reveals,
international efforts can draw public attention to previously unrecognized social
problems and inspire greater international efforts to deal with them.
A commitment to political action is also required. As the women's movement
has shown, improvements in women's conditions have been brought about through
relentless advocacy and political action. The women's movement has also demon
strated that despite these efforts, meaningful change comes slowly. It required
consistent lobbying to secure support for the adoption of the 1979 Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and it will take
even more effort to ensure that it is properly implemented by governments. Even
when there is sympathy for progressive causes, the results are not as promising as
might have been expected. Kathleen Staudt's (1990) assessment of the willingness
of international development agencies to implement much needed gender reforms
is quite pessimistic. If the aid agencies are slow to make a commitment to women's
welfare, the prospects of securing wider improvements are limited.
Nevertheless, a realistic assessment of the effectiveness of international social
welfare effort should not result in the conclusion that nothing can be done. While
much social science literature on current conditions is pessimistic, significant
improvements in social well-being can be brought about through appropriate
efforts at both the national and international levels. While global social conditions
are often perceived as desperate, Chapter 3 has shown that there have been
significant improvements in social welfare in many parts of the world during this
century. These efforts can be further enhanced by continued international efforts.
Second, there is much evidence to show that international social welfare efforts
have been hampered because of the imposition of inappropriate policy interven
tions. Effective international collaboration requires that all parties collaborate
equally in fostering the exchange of innovations and that the appropriateness of
all transfers be specifically evaluated. As the example of social security reveals,
little thought was given to appropriateness of the diffusion of Western approaches
to countries that had different economic, demographic, and cultural characteristics.
Another example of this problem was given in the last chapter where international
exchanges in social work were discussed. In both cases, the transfer of inappropri
ate approaches had negative consequences and marred international collaboration
in social welfare. Many other examples of this problem can be given.
Third, many critics believe that the problem of inappropriate transfers in social
welfare is a symptom of a much deeper problem of entrenched inequalities in the
world today. They claim that international exchanges will never be truly reciprocal
until the underlying problem of global inequality is resolved. Despite the best
intention of social workers and others engaged in international social welfare, they
claim that international collaboration in the field is inherently unequal and will
perpetuate the unequal exchanges of ideas and practices. This rather pessimistic
assessment reflects the views of a group of writers who believe that the world is
dominated by the industrial nations and other agents of international capitalism
such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Amin, 1976;
Chomsky, 1994; Danaher, 1994; Frank, 1975; Rich, 1994). Their ideas were
discussed in Chapter 2. They also believe that international aid inevitably reflects
the interests of these countries and organizations. Since international collaboration
in social welfare takes place within this wider global system, it supports institu
tionalized patterns of unequal exchange.
Although much of this literature overstates the case, it accurately describes the
entrenched inequalities in the global system and exposes the exploitative nature of
some types of international exchanges such as aid. The popular belief that inter
national aid to the developing countries is an altruistic activity, which drains scarce
resources from the industrial nations, has been refuted by numerous studies that
have shown that the industrial nations derive significant benefits from aid (Ayres,
1983; Hancock, 1989; Hayter, 1971). Most international aid is given in the form
of loans, which means that disbursements are paid back with interest. Similarly,
much bilateral aid is conditional in the sense that recipient countries are required
to use these disbursements to purchase goods and services from the donor country.
This usually involves the purchase of agricultural, construction, or industrial
equipment or the use of services such as those provided by expensive consultants.
In many cases, it involves the purchase of weapons and military technologies.
Bilateral aid is also frequently used for diplomatic purposes. Aid provided through
multilateral organizations such as the World Bank is believed to be less conditional,
but even here, the industrial countries derive benefits through the procurement of
the goods and services required by these loans. Bruce Rich (1994) claims that these
benefits actually exceed the amounts disbursed to poor countries.
While those who engage in international social welfare will hardly accept that
they are participants in a corrupt, exploitative system that advances the interests
of powerful global interests, the claim that exchanges in social welfare have often
been unequal is irrefutable. The literature on international social welfare is replete
with examples of the problems that have arisen as a result of the adoption of
inappropriate social policies and programs through international aid programs. As
was shown in Chapter 6, the impact of state social welfare in the Third World has
been negatively affected by the uncritical replication of Western approaches in
health, housing, education, social security, and social work. Indeed, one contro
versial publication even described international exchanges in social work as
imperialistic (Midgley, 1981).
Although the adoption of inappropriate social policies and programs can be

largely attributed to the influence of Western governments, aid agencies, and
consultants, it is not the case that there was a deliberate attempt to use these policies
and programs to subjugate Third World nations. Indeed, the adoption of Western
style social welfare was often encouraged with the intention of facilitating the
transformation of the developing countries into advanced, modern states. The
Western welfare state was seen as an ideal-type that the developing countries
should emulate. Today, as a more critical attitude has emerged, many international
activities in the social welfare field are carefully scrutinized to determine whether
they are truly reciprocal. International transfers are also more carefully examined
with reference to their cultural, demographic, social, and economic impact. Today,
intergovernment organizations, voluntary associations, and international profes
sional associations are much more sensitive to these issues. Greater efforts have
also been made to reverse the traditional unidirectional flow of policy approaches.
Attempts have also been made to adapt social welfare innovations in the industrial
nations. Certainly, there is considerable scope for Western social workers and
policy makers to learn from their colleagues in the Third World (Midgley, 1990a).
On the other hand, innovations from other countries are sometimes rejected even
though they offer promising solutions to pressing social problems. One example
is the reluctance of the American government to adopt workable European inno
vations in the treatment of substance abuse because they appear to legitimize the
use of drugs (Oppenheimer, 1993).
The unidirectional flow of ideas and practices in international social welfare has
not ended. As was noted in the last chapter, many examples of unequal exchanges
in social work can still be given, and much more needs to be done to ensure that
these exchanges are ended. Similar examples abound in other fields of social
welfare as well. Despite a far greater sensitivity to the issue, international consult
ants still travel to other countries to recommend the replication of inappropriate
social welfare policies, international diversity is still not given proper recognition
in social welfare education and research, and forums for the international exchange
of information still promote inappropriate transfers.
Unfortunately, commercial considerations now play a significant role in per
petuating the inappropriate adoption of Western approaches as more consulting
firms, individual entrepreneurs, and even institutions of higher education seek to
derive revenues from these activities. The rise of commercial welfare in the
industrial nations has also created new opportunities for the export of for-profit
services in other countries. Commercial insurance, health care, and other firms are
rapidly expanding their interests to the former communist and developing coun
tries with viable markets. In addition, intergovernment organizations such as the
World Bank are actively encouraging the privatization of key social services such
as social security (World Bank, 1994). The organization's role in fostering this
approach supports the views of those who believe that its programs are ideologi
cally motivated.
While there is a greater awareness of the need for appropriateness in international
social welfare today, cultural diversity still raises difficult issues in international social
welfare. While those who engage in international activities respect the cultural
rights of other people, some cultural practices have been questioned. Arranged
marriages, dowry, and genital mutilation are cultural practices that are deplored by
many advocates of women's rights. Similarly, many Third World people object to
the practice of intercultural adoption, which has become common as childless
middle-class families in the industrial countries increasingly import children from
other nations to fulfill their parental needs. While many Westerners believe that
international adoption is an altruistic attempt to help some impoverished Third
World child, many indigenous people view it as a form of cultural genocide
(Altstein & Simon, 1991; Bagley et al., 1993). While these are admittedly extreme
examples, they illustrate the complex challenges that arise out of cultural differ
ences at the international level.
Although these and other issues of cultural diversity cannot be easily resolved,
there is a far greater awareness of the need to respond to complex cultural issues
with care and sensitivity. Most authorities believe that attempts to impose standard
solutions or uniform policies are doomed to failure. A more complex process of
enhancing awareness of different cultural interpretations, entering into discussions
with culturally diverse groups and facilitating greater local involvement, is needed.
For example, UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund, 1996) reports that oppo
nents of female genital mutilation recognize that the practice can only be ended
when local women are fully involved in a dialogue about the harmful effects of
this practice. The involvement of local people is being encouraged in many other
fields of social welfare as well. Indeed, community-based interventions have made
a major contribution to improvements in primary health care, education, and
sanitation in developing countries.
The trend toward greater local involvement is also reflected in the way interna
tional aid is being directed toward voluntary organizations in many developing
countries. Official aid agencies are providing greater assistance to local nongov
ernment organizations, and the resources transferred by international voluntary
bodies has also increased. Kevin Watkins (1995) reports that the amount of aid
transferred to Third World countries by voluntary organizations in the industrial
nations was only slightly lower than the total amount disbursed by multilateral
agencies such as the World Bank. As these organizations have become much more
involved in the promotion of social welfare, some believe that efforts should be
made at the international level to enhance their role and that they should ultimately
replace governments by assuming primary responsibility for social welfare. While
the greater involvement of voluntary organizations in social welfare is undoubt
edly a positive development, the promotion of human well-being on a global scale
will require a concerted effort in which major social welfare institutions including
the family, community, voluntary sector, and especially government play a coor
dinated and positive role.
REFERENCES
Aaron, Η. (1967). Social security: International comparisons. In O. Eckstein (Ed.), Studies in the
economics of income maintenance (pp. 13-48). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Abel-Smith, B. (1958). Whose welfare state? In N. McKenzie (Ed.), Conviction (pp. 55-73). London:
McGibbon.
Abel-Smith, B. (1976). Value for money in health services. London: Heinemann.
Abel-Smith, B., & Leiserson, A. (1978). Poverty, development and health policy. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Abramovitz, M. (1988). Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare policy from colonial times to the
present. Boston: South End.
Abramovitz, M. (1992). The Reagan legacy: Undoing class, race and gender accords. Journal of
Sociology andSocial Welfare, 19(1), 91-110.
Abramovitz, M. (1996). Under attack, fighting back. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Adelman, I., & Morris, C. T. (1973). Economic growth and social equity in developing countries.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Allen Lane.
Ahearn, F. L. (1995). Displaced people. In R. Edwards et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th
ed., pp. 1771-1780). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Ahluwalia, M. (1976). Inequality, poverty and development. Journal of Development Economics, 3,
309-342.
Alber, J. (1988). Is there a crisis of the welfare state? Cross national evidence from Europe, North
America and Japan. European Sociological Review, 4, 181-207.
225
22ό SOCIAL WELFARE IN GLOBAL CONTEXT
Almanzor, A. (1967). The profession of social work in the Philippines. In Council on Social Work
Education, An intercultural exploration: Universals and differentials in social work values, func
tions and practice (pp. 123-137). New York: Council on Social Work Education.
Altstein, H., & Simon, R. J. (1991). Intercountry adoption: A multinational perspective. New York:
Praeger.
Amenta, E., & Skocpol, Τ. (1989). Taking exception: Explaining the distinctiveness of American public
policies in the last century. In F. G. Castles (Ed.), The comparative history of public policy (pp.
292-333). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amin, S. (1976). Unequal development. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Arndt, H. W. (1978). The rise and fall of economic growth: A study in contemporary thought. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Aronson, R. L. (1991). Self-employment: A labor market perspective. Ithaca, NY: ILR.
Axinn, J., & Levin, H. (1982). Social welfare: A history of the American response to need. New York:
Longman.
Ayres, R. (1983). Banking on the poor. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bacon, R., & Eltis, W. (1976). Britain's economic problems: Too few producers. London: Macmillan.
Bagley, C , with Young, L., & Scully, A. (1993). International and transracial adoptions. Brookfield,
VT: Avebury.
Bairoch, P. (1975). The economic development of the Third World since 1900. London: Methuen.
Baker, J. (1979). Social conscience and social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 8, 177-206.
Balkin, S. (1989). Self-employment for low-income people. New York: Praeger.
Barker, R. (Ed.). (1987). The social work dictionary. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social
Workers.
Barnett, C. (1986). The audit of war. London: Macmillan.
Barrow, R. J. (1978). The impact of social security on private savings: Evidence from the U.S. limeseries.
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Baster, N. (1972). Measuring development. London: Frank Cass.
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to
education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Beilharz, P., Considine, M., & Watts, R. (1992). Arguing about the welfare state: The Australian
experience. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Bell, D. (1960). The end of ideology: On the exhaustion of political ideas in the 50s. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press.
Benda-Beckmann, F., & Benda-Beckmann, K. (1994). Coping with insecurity. Focaal, 22/23(1), 7-34.
Benda-Beckmann, F., Benda-Beckmann, K., Brun, Ο. B., & Hirtz, F. (1988). Between kinship and the
state: Social security and law in developing countries. Dordrecht: Foris.
Biegel, D „ Shore, Β. K., & Gordon, E. (1984). Building support networks for the elderly. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Blakely, E. (1994). Planning local economic development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blank, R. M. (1994). Social protection versus economic flexibility. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Block, F , Cloward, R., Ehrenreich, B., & Piven, F. F. (1987). The mean season: The attack on the welfare
state. New York: Pantheon.
Bluestone, B., & Harrison, B. (1982). The de industrializing of America. New York: Basic Books.
Borzutsky, S. (1991). The Chicago boys, social security and welfare in Chile. In H. Glennerster & J.
Midgley (Eds.), The radical right and the welfare state: An international assessment (pp. 79-99).
Savage, MD: Barnes & Noble.
Bose, A. B. (1992). Social work in India: Developmental roles for a helping profession. In M. C.
Hokenstad, S. K. Khinduka, & J. Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international social work (pp. 71-84).
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Brachet-Marquez, V., & Sherraden, M. S. (1994). Political change and the welfare state: The case of
health and food policies in Mexico (1970-1993). World Development, 22, 1295-1312.
Brandt Commission. (1980). North-South: A program for survival. London: Pan.
Brauns, H. J., & Kramer, D. (1991). Social work education and professional development. In M. Hill
(Ed.), Socio/ work and the European Community: The social policy and practice contexts (pp.
80-99). London: Jessica Kingsley.
References 92/
Brierland, D. (1995). Social work practice: History and evolution. In R. Edwards et al. (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 2247-2258). Washington, DC: National Association of
Social Workers.
Brilliant, E. L. (1995). Voluntarism. In R. Edwards et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed.,
pp. 2469-2482). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Brokensha, D., & Hodge, P. (1969). Community development: An interpretation. San Francisco:
Chandler.
Bryson, L. (1992). Welfare and the state. London: Macmillan.
Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Buchanan, J., & Wagner, R. E. (1977). Democracy in deficit. New York: Academic Press.
Burtless, G. (1994). Employment prospects of welfare recipients. In D. S. Nightingale & R. Haveman
(Eds.), The work alternative: Welfare reform and the realities of the job market (pp. 71-106).
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Burton, C. E. (1992). The poverty debate: Politics and the poor in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Cannan, C. Berry, L., & Lyons, K. (1992). Social work and Europe. London: Macmillan.
Cardoso, F. H., & Faleto, E. (1979. Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Carrier, J., & Kendall, I. (1973). Social policy and social change: Explanations of the development of
social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 2, 209-224.
Chambliss, R. (1954). Social thought from Hammurabi to Comte. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chenery, H., Ahluwalia, M., Bell, C , Duloy, J. H., & Jolly, R. (1974). Redistribution with growth.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1994). World orders old and new. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chow, N. (1988). The administration and financing of social security in China. Hong Kong: University
of Hong Kong Center for Asian Studies.
Clark, J , & Langan, M. (1993). The British welfare state: Foundation and modernization. In A. Cochrane
& J. Clark (Eds), Comparing welfare states: Britain in international context (pp. 19-48). London:
Sage.
Clasen, J., & Freeman, R. (Eds.). (1994). Social policy in Germany. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Clifford, W. (1966). A primer of social casework in Africa. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.
Cockburn, C. (1980). The role of social security in development. International Social Security Review,
33, 337-358.
Cohen, B. (1973). The question of imperialism: The political economy of dominance and dependence.
New York: Basic Books.
Cohen, M. J. (Ed.). (1994). Hunger 1995: Transforming the politics of hunger. Silver Spring, MD: Bread
of the World Institute.
Cohen, M. J. ( E d ) , (1995). Hunger 1995: Causes of hunger. Silver Spring, MD: Bread of the World
Institute.
Coleman, J. (1986). Individual interests and collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
S95-S120.
Cook, L. J. (1993). The Soviet social contract and why it failed: Welfare policy and workers politics
from Brezhnev to Yeltsin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cornia, G., Jolly, R., & Stewart, F. (1987). Adjustment with a human face. Oxford: Clarendon.
Crosland, A. (1956). The future of socialism. London: Jonathan Cape.
Crozier, M., Huntington, S. P., & Watanuki, J. (Eds.). (1975). The crisis of democracy: Report on the
govemability of democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University Press.
Danaher, K. (Ed.). (1994). 50 years is enough: The case against the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. Boston: South End.
Davey, J. D. (1995). The new social contract: America's journey from welfare state to police state.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Deacon, B. (1983). Social policy and socialism: The struggle for socialist relations of welfare. London:
Pluto.
Deacon, B. (Ed.). (1992). Social policy, social justice and citizenship in Eastern Europe. Brookfield,
VT: Avebury.
de Bruijn, M. (1994). Coping with crisis in Sahelian Africa: Fulbe agro-Pastoralists and Islam. Focaal,
22/23(1), 47-65.
Dixon, J. (1981). The Chinese welfare system, 1949-1979. New York: Praeger.
Dixon, J. (1989). A comparative perspective on provident funds: Their present and future explained.
Journal of International and Comparative Social Welfare, 5(2), 1-28.

Dixon, J., & Macarov, D. (Eds.). (1992). Social welfare in socialist countries. London: Routledge.
Dixon, J., & Scheurell, R. (1990). Social welfare in Latin America. London: Routledge.
Dolgoff, R., & Feldstein, D. (1980). Understanding social welfare. New York: Longman.
Ehrenreich, B. (1987). "The New Right" attack on social welfare. In F. Block, R. A. Cloward, B.
Ehrenreich, & F. F. Piven (Eds.), The mean season: The attack on the welfare state (pp. 161-196).
New York: Pantheon.
Else, J. F , & Raheim, S. (1992). AFDC clients as entrepreneurs: Self-employment offers an important
option. Public Welfare, 50(4), 36-41.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1985). Politics against markets: The social democratic road to power. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Estes, R. (1984). The social progress of nations. New York: Praeger.
Estes, R. (1988). Trendsin world social development: The social progress of nations, 1970-1978. New
York: Praeger.
Estes, R. (1993). Towards sustainable development: From theory to praxis. Social Development Issues,
150), 1-29.
Feldstein, M. (1974). Social security, induced retirement and aggregate capital accumulation. Journal
of Political Economy, 83, 447-475.
Fields, G. S. (1980). Poverty, inequality and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flora, P., & Alber, J. (1981). Modernization, democratization and the development of welfare states in
Western Europe. In P. Flora & A. J. Heidenheimer (Eds.), The development of welfare states in
Europe and America (pp. 37-80). N e w Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Flora, P., & Heidenheimer, A. J. (Eds.). (1981). The development of welfare states in Europe and
America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Frank, A. G. (1975). On capitalist underdevelopment. New York: Oxford University Review Press.
Friedlander, W. (1955). Introduction to social welfare. New York: Prentice Hall.
Friedlander, W. (1975). International social welfare. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedmann, R. R., Gilbert, N., & Sherer, M. (1987). Modern welfare states: A comparative view of trends
and prospects. Brighton, England: Wheatsheaf.
Froland, C , Pancoast, D. L., Chapman, N. J., & Kimbolo, P. J. (1981). Helping networks and the human
services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Frumkin, M., & Lloyd, G. A. (1995). Social work education. In R. Edwards et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of social work (19th ed., pp. 2238-2247). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Basic Books.
Furniss, N., & Tilton, T. (1977). The case for the welfare state. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Galaway, B., & Hudson, J. (Eds.). (1994). Community economic development: Perspectives on research
and policy. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publications.
George, V., & Howards, I. (1991). Poverty amidst affluence: Britain and the United States. Aldershot:
Edward Elgar.
George, V., & Manning, N. (1980). Socialism, social welfare and the Soviet Union. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
George, V., & Wilding, P. (1976). Ideology and social welfare. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
George, V., & Wilding, P. (1984). The impact of social policy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
George, V., & Wilding, P. (1994). Welfare and ideology. Hemel Hempstead, England: Wheatsheaf.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gilbert, N. (1976). Alternative forms of social protection for developing countries. Social Security
Review, 50, 363-387.
Gilbert, N., & Gilbert, B. (1989). The enabling state: Modern welfare capitalism in America. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Gilder, G. (1981). Wealth and poverty. London: Buchan and Enright.
Hill, M. (Ed.). (1991). Social work and the European Community: The social policy and practice
contexts. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hills, J. (Ed.). (1990). The state ofwerfare: The welfare state in Britain since 1974.New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hokenstad, M. C., & Kendall, K. A. (1995). International social work education. In R. Edwards et al.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia ofsocial work (19th ed., pp. 1511-1520). Washington, DC: National Associa-
tion of Social Workers.
Hokenstad, M. C., Khinduka, S . K., & Midgley, J. (Eds.). (1992). Profiles in international social work.
Honigsbaum, F. (1989). Health, happiness and security: The creation of the national health service.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hopps, J. G., & Collins, P. M. (1995). Social work profession overview. In R. Edwards et al. (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 2266-2282). Washington, DC: National Association of
Social Workers.
International Labor Ofice. (1976). Employment, growth and basic needs: A one worldproblem. Geneva:
Author.
International Labor Office. (1984). Introduction to social security. Geneva: Author.
Janssen. B. (1993). The reluctant wevare state: A history of American social welfare policies. Pacific
Grove, CA: BrookdCole.
Jayasuriya, L. (1996). The Sri Lonkun weljiare smte: Retrospect and prospect (Monograph Series No.
1). Churchlands, Australia: Edith Cowan University.
Jencks. C. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race, poverty and the underclars. New York: Harper.
Jimenez, M..& Alwyn, N. (1992). Social work in Chile: Support for the struggle for justice in Latin
America. In M. C. Hokenstad, S.K. Khinduka, & J. Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international social
work (pp. 29-41). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Johnson, N. (1987). The welfare state in transition. Hemel Hempstead. England: Wheatsheaf.
Jones, C. (1985). Patterns of social policy. London: Tavistock.
Jones, C. (1990). Promoting prosperity: The Hong Kong way of social policy. Hong Kong: Chinese
University Press.
Jones, C. (1992). Social work in Great Britain: Surviving the challenge of conservative ideology. In M.
C. Hokenstad. S. K. Khinduka, & J. Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international social work (pp. 43-58).
Jones, H. (1990). Social weyare in Third World development. London: Macmillan.
Judge, K. (1987). The British welfare state in transition. In R. R. Friedmann. N. Gilbert, & M. Sherer
(Eds.), Modern welfare states: A comparative view of trends and prospects (pp. 1-43). Brighton.
England: Wheatsheaf.
Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S.B. (1980). Social services in inrernationalperspective: The emergence of
the sixth system. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Kaim-Caudle, P. R.(1 973). Comparative social policy and social security: A ten country study. London:
Martin Robertson.
Karger, H. (1992). Income maintenance programs and the Reagan domestic agenda. Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare. I9( 1). 45-62.
Karger. H.,& Stoesz, D. (1992). Reconstructing the American welfare state. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Karger. H.. & Stoesz. D. (1994). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach. New York:
Longman.
Kaseke, E. (1991). The social impact of economic structural adjustment programs in Africa and
implications for social work programs. In N. Hall (Ed.), The social implications of structural
adjustment in Africa. Harare, Zimbabwe: School of Social Work.
Kassalow, E. M. (Ed.). (1968). The role ofsocial security in economic development. Washington, DC:
Department of Health Education and Welfare.
Kendall, K. (1974). Foreword. In P. J. Stickney & R. J. Resnick (Eds.). World guide to social work
education (pp. i-v). New York: International Association of Schools of Social Work.
Kendall, K. (1986). International social work education. In A. Minahan e t al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
social work (pp. 987-956). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Kendall, K. (1995). Foreword. In T. D. Watts, D. Elliott, & N.Mayadas (Eds.), International handbook
on social work education (pp. xiii-xvii). Westport, C T Greenwood.
References
Kerr, C , Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F., & Myers, C. A. (1960). Industrialism and industrial man.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Khinduka, S. K. (1971). Social work in the Third World. Social Service Review, 45(1), 62-73.
King, D. (1995). Actively seeking work: The politics of unemployment and welfare policy in the United
States and Great Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Klein, R., & O'Higgins, M. (1985). Introduction: Old myths—new challenges. In R. Klein & M. O'Higgins
(Eds.), The future of welfare (pp. 1-7). London: Basil Blackwell.
Kleinman, M. (1994). Housing policy and the housing system. In J. Clasen & R. Freeman (Eds.), Social
policy in Germany. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Kolberg, J. E. (1991). The welfare state as employer. Armonk, NY: Μ. E. Sharpe.
Korpi, W. (1983). The social democratic class struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Koskela, E., & Viren, M. (1983). Social security and household savings in an international cross section.
American Economic Review, 73, 212-217.
Krieger, J. (1987). Social policy in the age of Reagan and Thatcher. In R. Milliband (Ed.), Socialist
register 1987 (pp. 87-101). London: Merlin.
Kristol, I. (1978). Two cheers for capitalism. New York: Basic Books.
Krugman, P. (1996). Pop internationalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ksiezopolski, M. (1996). Social security in Poland: The challenge of the transformation to a market
economy. In J. Midgley & Μ. B. Tracy (Eds.), Challenges to social security: An international
exploration (pp. 69-85). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Lantsev, M. S. (1976). The economic aspects of social security in the USSR. Moscow: Progress.
Lasch, C. (1991). The true and only heaven: Progress and its critics. New York: Norton.
Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1987). The end of organized capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.
Le Grand, J. (1982). The strategy of equality: Redistribution and the social services. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Le Grand, J. (1990). The state of welfare. In J. Hills (Ed.), The state of welfare: The welfare state in
Britain since 1974 (pp. 338-362). London: Oxford University Press.
Lesnoy, S. D„ & Leimer, D. R. (1979). Social security and private savings: New time series evidence
with alternative specifications. Washington, D C : Social Security Administration.
Leung, J. C. B. (1994). Dismantling the iron rice bowl: Welfare reforms in the People's Republic of
China. Journal of Social Policy, 23, 341-361.
Lightman, E. (1991). Caught in the middle: The radical right and the Canadian welfare state. In H.
Glennerster & J. Midgley (Eds.), The radical right and the welfare state: An international assessment
(pp. 141-160). Savage, MD: Barnes & Noble.
Little, K. (1965). West African urbanization: A study of voluntary associations in social change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Livingston, A. (1969). Social policy in developing countries. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Loup, J. (1980). Can the Third World survive? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
MacMillan, H. (1938). The middle way. London: Macmillan.
MacPherson, S. (1982). Social policy in the Third World. Brighton, England: Harvester.
MacPherson, S., & Midgley, J. (1987). Comparative social policy and the Third World. Brighton,
England: Wheatsheaf.
MacShane, D. (1995). International capitalism: It's us. Fabian Review. 107(6), 1-4.
Madison, B. Q. (1968). Social welfare in the Soviet Union. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mahaffey, M., & Hanks, J. W. (Eds.). (1982). Practical politics: Social work and political responsibility.
Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Mair, L. (1944). Welfare in the British colonies. London: Royal Institute for International Affairs.
Makela, Κ. (1996). Alcoholics Anonymous as a mutual-help movement. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Malloy, J. (1979). The politics of social security in Brazil. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Mangen, S. (1991). Social policy, the radical right and the German welfare state. In H. Glennerster &
J. Midgley (Eds.), The radical right and the welfare state: An international assessment (pp. 100-123).
Savage, MD: Barnes & Noble..
Manning, N. (1992). Social policy in the Soviet Union and its successors. In B. Deacon (Ed.), The new
Eastern Europe: Social policy past, present and future (pp. 31-66). London: Sage.
Marmor, T., Mashaw, J., & Harvey, P. (1990). America's misunderstood welfare state: Persistent myths,
enduring realities. New York: Basic Books.
Marshall, T. H.(1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Marshall, Τ. H. (1971). Value problems of welfare capitalism. Journal of Social Policy, 7(1), 15-32.
Martinez-Brawley, Ε. E., & Delevan, S. M. (1993). Transferring technology in the personal social
services. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Mazibuko, F , McKendrick, B., & Patel, L. (1992). Social work in South Africa: Coping with apartheid
and change. In M. C. Hokenstad, S. K. Khinduka, & J. Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international
social work (pp. 115-128). Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Mead, L. (1986). Beyond entitlement: The social obligations of citizenship. New York: Basic Books.
Mesa-Lago, C. (1978). Social security in Latin America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Mesa-Lago, C. (1989). Ascent to bankruptcy: Financing social security in Latin America. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Mesa-Lago, C. (1992). Health care for the poor in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC:
Pan American Health Organization.
Mesa-Lago, C. (1994). Changing social security in Latin America: Towards alleviating the social costs
of economic reform. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Midgley, J. (1981). Professional imperialism: Social work in the Third World. London: Heinemann.
Midgley, J. (1984a). Diffusion and the development of social policy. Journal of Social Policy, 13,
167-184.
Midgley, J. (1984b). Social security, inequality and the Third World. New York: Wiley.
Midgley, J. (1984c). Social welfare implications of development paradigms. Social Service Review, 58,
181-198.
Midgley, J. (1985). Models of welfare and social planning in Third World countries. In B. Mohan (Ed.),
New horizons in social welfare policy (pp. 89-108). Cambridge, MA: Shenckman.
Midgley, J. (1987). The Third World nations: Insights into the colonial past and present contexts of
development. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 24(\), 11-19.
Midgley, J. (1988a). Industrialization and welfare: The case of the four little tigers. Social Policy and
Administration, 20, 225-238.
Midgley, J. (1988b). Inequality, the Third World and development. International Journal of Contempo
rary Sociology, 25(2), 93-102.
Midgley, J. (1989). Social work in the Third World: Crisis and response. In P. Carter, T. Jeffs, & M. Smith
(Eds.), Social work and social welfare yearbook (pp. 33-45). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Midgley, J. (1990a). International social work: Learning from the Third World. Social Work, 35,
295-301.
Midgley, J. (1990b). The New Christian Right, social policy and the welfare state. Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare. 77(1), 89-106.
Midgley, J. (1991). The radical right, politics and society. In H. Glennerster & J. Midgley (Eds.), The
radical right and the welfare state: An international assessment (pp. 3-22). Savage, MD: Barnes &
Noble.
Midgley, J. (1992a). The challenge of international social work. In M. C. Hokenstad, S. K. Khinduka,
& J. Midgley (Eds.), Profiles in international social work (pp. 13-28). Washington, DC: National
Association of Social Workers.
Midgley, J. (1992b). Society, social policy and the ideology of Reaganism. Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare, 79(1), 13-28.
Midgley, J. (1993). Ideological roots of social development strategies. Social Development Issues, 75(1),
1-13.
Midgley, J. (1994a). The challenge of social development: Their Third World and ours. Social Devel
opment Issues, 76(2), 1-12.
Midgley, J. (1994b). Defining social development: Historical trends and conceptual formulations. Social
Development Issues, 76X3), 3-19.
Midgley, J. (1994c). Social security policy in developing countries: Integrating state and traditional
systems. Focaal, 22/23, 219-230.
Midgley, J. (1994d). Transnational strategies for social work: Towards effective reciprocal exchanges.
In R. Meinert, T. Pardeck, & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Issues in social work: A critical analysis (pp.
165-180). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Midgley, J. (1995). Social development: The developmental perspective in social welfare. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
References
Midgley, J. (1996a). Involving social work in economic development. International Social Work, 39(1),
13-26.
Midgley, J. (1996b). Towards a developmental model of social policy: Relevance of the Third World
experience. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23(1), 59-74.
Midgley, J., & Kaseke, E. (1996). Challenges to social security in developing countries: Coverage and
poverty in Zimbabwe. In J. Midgley <Sc M. Tracy (Eds.), Challenges to social security: An interna
tional exploration (pp. 103-122). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Midgley, J., & Simbi, P. (1993). Promoting a development focus in the community organization
curriculum: Relevance of the African experience. Journal of Social Work Education, 29, 269-278.
Mishra, R. (1977). Society and social policy: Theories and practice of welfare. London: Macmillan.
Mishra, R. (1984). The welfare state in crisis. Brighton, England: Wheatsheaf.
Mishra, R. (1990). The welfare state in capitalist society. Hemel Hempstead, England: Wheatsheaf.
Moore, T. S. (1996). 77ie disposable workforce: Worker displacement and employment instability in
America. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Morawetz, D. (1977). Twenty-five years of economic development: 1950 to 1975. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Morris, M. D . (1979). Measuring the condition of the world's poor. New York: Pergamon.
Moser, C. Ο. N. (1989). Gender planning and development: Theory, practice and training. London:
Routledge.
Mouton, P. (1975). Social security in Africa: Trends, problems and prospects. Geneva: International
Labor Office.
Munday, B. (1989). The crisis in welfare: An international perspective on social services and social
work. New York: St. Martin's.
Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy 1950-1980. New York: Basic Books.
Muzumdar, A. M. (1964). Social welfare in India: Mahatma Gandhi's contribution. London: Asia
Publishing House.
Nagpaul, H. (1972). The diffusion of American social work education to India. International Social
Work, 75(1), 13-17.
Nisbet, R. (1980). History of the idea of progress. New York: Basic Books.
Niskanan, W. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Novak, M. (Ed.). (1987). The new consensus on family and welfare. Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute.
O'Connor, J. (1973). The fiscal crisis of the state. New York: St. Martin's.
O'Higgins, M. (1985). Welfare, redistribution and inequality—Disillusion, illusion and reality. In P. Bean,
J. Ferris, & D. Whynes (Eds.), In defence of welfare (pp. 162-182). London: Tavistock.
Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the welfare state. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Offe, C. (1987). Democracy against the welfare state? Political Theory, 15, 501-537.
Olasky, M. (1992). The tragedy of American compassion. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.
Olsson, S. E. (1993). Social policy and welfare state in Sweden. Lund: Arkiv forlag.
Onokerhoraye, A. G. (1984). Social services in Nigeria. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Oppenheimer, G. M. (1993). To build a bridge: The use of foreign models by domestic critics of U.S.
drug policy. In R. Bayer & G. M. Oppenheimer ( E d s ) , Confronting drug policy: Illicit drugs in a
free society (pp. 194-225). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orloff, A. S., & Skocpol, T. (1984). Why not equal protection: Explaining the politics of public social
spending in Britain, 1900-1911 and the United States, 1880s-1920. American Sociological Review,
49, 726-750.
Patel, L. (1992). Restructuring social welfare: Options for South Africa. Johannesburg: Raven.
Patterson, J. T. (1994). America's struggle against poverty 1900-1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Phillips, K. (1991). The politics of rich and poor: Wealth and the American electorate in the Reagan
aftermath. New York: Harper.
Pierson, C. (1991). Beyond the welfare slate: The new political economy of welfare. Cambridge: Polity.
Pimlott, B. (1988). The myth of consensus. In L. M. Smith (Ed.), The making of Britain: Echoes of
greatness (pp. 129-141). London: Macmillan.
Pinker, R. (1971). Social theory and social policy. London: Heinemann.
Pinker, R. (1979). TVie idea of welfare. London: Heinemann.
Hflj SOCIAL WELFARE IN GLOBAL CONTEXT
Piven, F. F , & Cloward, R. (1971). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare. New York:
Pantheon.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1982). The new class war: Reagan's attack on the welfare state and its
consequences. New York: Pantheon.
Powell, M. (1995). The strategy of equality revisited. Journal of Social Policy, 24, 163-191.
Prigmore, C. S., & Atherton, C. R. (1979). Social welfare policy: Analysis and formulation. Lexington,
MA: D . C. Heath.
Psacharopoulos, G. (1973). Returns to education: An international comparison. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Psacharopoulos, G. (1992). Returns to investment in education: A global update. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Putnam, R. D., with Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions
in modem Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare: How racism undermined the War on Poverty. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rank, M. R. (1994). Living on the edge: The realities of welfare in America. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Rao, V., & Kendall, K. (1984). World guide to social work education. New York: International
Association of Schools of Social Work.
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York:
Knopf.
Reidy, A. (1981). Welfarists in the market. International Social Work, 24(2), 36-46.
Rein, M., & Rainwater, L. (Eds.). (1986). Public/private interplay in social protection: A comparative
study. Armonk, NY: Μ. E. Sharpe.
Reisman, D. A. (1977). Richard Titmuss: Welfare and society. London: Heinemann Educational.
Resnick, R. P. (1976). Conscienrjzation: An indigenous approach to international social work. Interna
tional Social Work, 19(2), 21-29.
Rich, B. (1994). Mortgaging the earth: The World Bank, environmental impoverishment and the crisis
of development. Boston: Beacon.
Richmond, M. ,(1918). Social diagnosis. N e w York: Russell Sage.
Rimlinger, G. (1971). Welfare policy and industrialization in Europe, North America and Russia. New
York: Wiley.
Robson, W. A. (1976). Welfare state and welfare society: Illusion and reality. London: Allen and Unwin.
Roche, M. (1992). Rethinking citizenship: Welfare, ideology and change in modern society. Cambridge:
Polity.
Rodgers, Β. N., Doron, Α., & Jones, M. (1977). The study of social policy: A comparative approach.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Rodgers, Β. N., Greve, J., & Morgan, J. S. (1968). Comparative social administration. London: Allen
and Unwin.
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House.
Rose, R. (1986). Common goals but different roles: The state's contribution to the welfare mix. In R. Rose
& R. Shiratori (Eds.), The welfare state east and west (pp. 13-39). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rostow, W. W. (1960). The stages of economic growth: A non-Communist manifesto. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ruggles, P., & O'Higgins, M. (1987). Retrenchment and the New Right. In M. Rein, G. Esping-Andersen,
& L. Rainwater (Eds.), Stagnation and renewal in social policy (pp. 160-190). Armonk, NY:
Μ. E. Sharpe.
Russell-Wood, A. J. R. (1969). Fidalgos and philanthropists. London: Macmillan.
Rys, V. (1964). The sociology of social security. Bulletin of the International Social Security Associa
tion, 17, 242-268.
Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare
state. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Samuelson, R. J. (1996, March 25). Down-sizing for growth. Newsweek, p. 45.
Schultz, J. H. (1995). The economics of aging. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
Semmel, B. (1960). Imperialism and social reform. London: Allen and Unwin.
Shawkey, A. (1972). Social work education in Africa. International Social Work, 15(1), 3-16.
Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: Μ. E. Sharpe.
References 233
Skocpol, Τ. (1987). America's incomplete welfare state: The limits of New Deal reforms and the origins
of the present crisis. In M. Rein, G. Esping-Andersen, & L. Rainwater (Eds.), Stagnation and
renewal in social policy: The rise and fall of policy regimes (pp. 35-58). Armonk, NY: Μ. E. Sharpe.
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United
States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Shonfield, A. (1965). Modern capitalism: The changing balance between private and public power. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. (1990). More than altruism: The politics of private foreign aid. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Specht, H., & Courtney, Μ. E. (1994). Fallen angels: How social work has abandoned its mission. New
York: Free Press.
Staudt, K. (Ed.). (1990). Women, international development and politics. Philadelphia: Temple Univer
sity Press.
Stephens, J. (1979). The transition from capitalism to socialism. London: Macmillan.
Streeten, P., with Burki, S. J., Ul Haq, M., Hicks, N., & Stewart, F. (1981). First things first: Meeting
basic needs in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tawney, R. H. (1931). Equality. London: Allen and Unwin.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (1991). Social change, social welfare and social science. Hemel Hempstead, England:
Wheatsheaf.
Taylor-Gooby, P., & Dale, J. (1981). Social theory and social welfare. London: Edward Arnold.
Thane, P. (1982). The foundations of the welfare state. London: Longman.
Thompson, C. (1996, May 13). Maple leaf rage. In These Times.
Thurz, D., & Vigilante, J. (1975). Meeting human needs: 1. An overview of nine countries. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Thurz, D., & Vigilante, J. (1976). Meeting human needs: 2. Additional perspectives from thirteen
countries. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Timmins, N. (1996). The five giants: A biography of the welfare state. London: Fontana.
Titmuss, R. (1974). Social policy: An introduction. London: Allen and Unwin.
Titmuss, R. Μ. (1958). The social divisions of welfare: Some reflections on the search for equity. In R. M.
Titmuss (Ed.), Essays on the welfare state (pp. 34-55). London: Allen and Unwin.
Titmuss, R. M. (1962). Income distribution and social change. London: Allen and Unwin.
Titmuss, R. M. (1968). Commitment to welfare. London: Allen and Unwin.
Titmuss, R. M. (1971). The gift relationship. London: Allen and Unwin.
Titmuss, R. M., Abel-Smith, B.,& Lynes, T. (1961). Social policies and population growth in Mauritius.
London: Methuen.
United Kingdom, Colonial Office. (1954). Social development in the British colonial territories.
London: HMSO.
United Nations. (1950). Training for social work: An international survey. New York: Author.
United Nations. (1971a). Popular participation in development. New York: Author.
United Nations. (1971b). Social policy and planning in national development. International Social
Development Review, No. 3, pp. 4-15.
United Nations. (1975). Popular participation in decision making for development. New York: Author.
United Nations. (1979). Patterns of government expenditure on social services. New York: Author.
United Nations. (1993a). Crime trends and criminal justice operations at the regional and interregional
levels. New York: Author.
United Nations. (1993b). Report on the world social situation, 1993. New York: Author.
United Nations. (1995). The world's women 1995: Trends and statistics. New York: Author.
United Nations Children's Fund. (1982). Popular participation in basic services: Lessons learned
through UNICEF's experience. Assignment Children, 59/60(1), 121-132.
United Nations Children's Fund. (1995). The progress of nations. New York: Author.
United Nations Children's Fund. (1996). The progress of nations. New York: Author.
United Nations Development Program. (1990). Human development report, 1990. New York: Author.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (1995). The state of the world's refugees: In search
of solutions. N e w York: Oxford University Press.
U.S. Committee for Refugees. (1993). 1993 World refugee survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). 77ie modern world system I: Capitalist agriculture and origins of the European
world economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1980). The capitalism world economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watkins, K. (1995). The OXFAM report. Oxford: OXFAM.
Watts, T. D., Elliott, D., & Mayadas, N. (1995). International handbook on social work education.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Wenger, C. (1984). The supportive network: Coping with old age. London: Allen and Unwin.
Wetzel, J. W. (1993). The world of women: In pursuit of human rights. New York: New York University
Press.
Whittaker, J. K., & Garbarino, J. (1983). Social support networks: Informal helping in the human
services. New York: Aldine.
Wilensky, H. (1975). The welfare state and equality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wilensky, H., & Le beaux, C. (1965). Industrial society and social welfare. New York: Free Press.
Williams, F. (1989). Social policy: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Policy.
Wilson, E. (1977). Women and the welfare state. London: Tavistock.
Wilson, M. (1993). The German welfare state: A conservative regime in crisis. In A. Cochrane & J. Clark
(Eds.), Comparing welfare states: Britain in international context (pp. 141-171). London: Sage.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (19%). When work disappears: The world of the urban poor. New York: Knopf.
Woodroofe, K. (1962). From charity to social work. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
World Bank. (1975). The assault on world poverty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
World Bank. (1980). Health: Sector policy paper. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (1990). World development report, 1990: Poverty. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (1991). World development report, 1990: The challenge of development. Washington, DC:
Author.
World Bank. (1993). World development report, 1990: Investing in health. Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (1994). Averting the old age crisis: Policies to protect the old and promote growth.
Washington, DC: Author.
World Bank. (1995). World development report: Workers in an integrating world. Washington, DC:
Author.
World Health Organization. (1982). Activities of the World Health Organization in promoting commu
nity involvement for health development. Geneva: Author.
INDEX
Aaron, Η., 11
Altruism, see Social conscience theory
Abel-Smith, Β., 10, 86, 116, 119, 126,
Alwyn. N.. 166. 172, 174
130, 197 Amenta, E., 81
Abramovitz, M., 92, 132, 137, 150, 151 Amin, S , 29, 222
Addams, J., 163 Arab League, 207
Adelman, I., 193 Arndt, H. W., 49, 200
Adorno, T , 148 Aronson, R. L., 194
Advocacy, 174-175 Atherton, C , 99
Agriculture, 23, 2 6 , 4 9 , 63, 65 Ayres, R., 222
Ahearn, F , 215, 216 Axinn, J., 98
Ahluwalia, M., 46, 186
AIDS, see HIV/AIDS
Alber.J., 108, 152, 153 Bacon, R., 122, 146
Alcoholics Anonymous, 204, 211 Bagley, C , 224
Almanzor, Α., 176, 178 Balkin, S , 199
Alstein, H., 224 Barker, R., 160
Althusser, L., 109 Bamett, C , 137
237
Bairoch, P., 53 Chow, N„ 86

Barrow, R. J., 124 Churchill, W., 108
Baer, J., 98 Citizenship theory, 99-100, 199-200
Baster, N., 45 Clark, J., 117, 142
Becker, G., 126 Clasen, J., 11
Beilharz, P., 142 Clifford, W„ 102
Bell, C , 186 Cloward, R . , 9 2 , 105, 150, 151
Bell, D., 101 Cockburn, C , 71, 102
Benda-Beckmann, F. von, 70 Cohen, B„ 28
Benda-Beckmann, K. von, 70 Cohen, M., 58, 59, 60, 65
Berry, L„ 165 Coleman, J., 127, 197
Beveridge, W., 78, 90, 99, 109 Collins, P., 172
Beveridge Report W., 78, 90, 99, 109 Colonialism, see Imperialism
Biegel, D., 70 Communications, see Information
Bismarck, O. von, 77, 103, 105 technology
Blank, R., 124 Commercial welfare, see Social welfare,
Blakely, 192 commercial
Block, R, 92 Communist nations (including former
Bluestone, B., 30, 138 communist nations), 26, 28, 36-37,
Bonilla, Α., 144 51-52-57-59, 72, 73, 74, 78, 82,
Borzutsky, S., 144, 152 84, 96, 102, 117-119, 136
Bose, A. B „ 176 Community development, 86, 161, 171,
Brachet-Marquez, V., 152 184, 185, 198
Brandt, W., 35 Communitarianism, 110, 186, 188-189
Brandt Commission, 35 Conscientization, 172, 174
Brauns, H. J., 168 Considine, M., 142
Brezhnev, L., 51, 83 Convergence hypothesis, see
Brieland, D„ 173 Functionalist theory
Brilliant, E. L., 72 Cook, L. S., 5 1 , 118
Brokensha, D„ 184 Cornia, G., 87
Bryson, L., 132 Corporatism, 94, 95, 104
Brun, Ο. B., 70
Council on Social Work Education, xv
Buchanan, J., 146
Courtney, M., 176
Buckley, W„ 146
Coyle, G., 163
Burcless, G , 126
Crime 5, 49, 57
Burton, C. E., 57
Crosland, Α., 137
Butler, R., 137
Crozier, M , 146
Culture, 19, 33, 35, 107, 223-224. See
also Ethnicity
Cannan, C , 165, 172
Capitalism, 28-30, 31-32, 74-75, 80, 91,
94-95, 104-107, 114, 125, 147-149, Danaher, K., 32, 222
220 Davey, J.,92, 151
Cardoso, F. H., 28 Dale, J., 109. 138
Carrier, J., 97 Deacon, B, 11, 13, 82, 86, 96, 118
Caliph Omar, 77 de Bruin, M., 71
Case studies, 13-14, 18 Delevan, S. M„ 179
Census, 4 4 Dependency theory, 27, 28-29, 31
Chambliss, R., 77 de Tocqueville, Α., 71
Chandragupta Mauraya, 77 Development aid, 220, 224
Charity Organization Society, 16, 72, 73, Diestenweg, Α., 165
162, 176 Diffusion, 28-29. 85, 107-108, 119, 167,
Chapman, N. J., 70 177-179,219, 221-224
Chenery, H., 186 Discrimination, see Racism, women
Child welfare, 1 5 , 4 9 , 74, 121, 171, 172, Distorted development, 53, 75, 182
208-209, 2 2 1 , 2 2 4 Dixon, J., 11, 13, 8 5 , 2 1 9
Chomsky, N., 40, 222 Dolgoff, R., 98
Index 23V
Doron, Α., 11 Galbraith, K., 109

Dulloy.J. H., 186 Gandhi, M., 99
Dunant, H., 205 Garbarino, J., 70
Dunlop, J. T., 101 Gellner, E., 24
Durkheim, E., 101 George, V., 83, 109, 112, 116, 141
Gilbert, B., 8, 69, 75, 92, 154, 155
Gilbert, N., 8, 13, 69, 70, 75, 92, 154,
Ecology, see Environment 155
Economic development, 26-27, 28-29, Gilder, G., 147
30-32, 35, 51. 52, 53-55,75-76, Gillion, C , 144
83, 114, 136-137, 180-181, Gingrich, N., 9 2
185-186, 192-196, 196-199. See Ginsburg, N., 80, 91, 105, 106, 133
also Third World development Glennerster, H., 79, 107, 110, 142, 150,
Education, 5, 7, 13, 50, 54, 56, 61, 62, 153
64, 65-67, 86, 116, 120, 192, Globalization:
196-197 defined xi-xiii, 21, 30, 31, 291-202,
Ehrenreich, B , 92, 150, 151 220
Elliott, D., 73, 114 history, 22-30
Else, J. F , 199 dimensions, 30-34
Eltis, W., 122, 146 Global system, 21-37
Employment, 30-31, 50, 52, 57, 59, 62, Gorbachev, M., 169
84, 118, 124-125, 126, 138, 141, Goldin,P., 138
153, 186, 193, 198-199, 218 Goldwater, B., 145
Engels, F , 105 Gordon, E., 70
Environment, 32, 39, 118, 200 Gough, I., 80, 91, 105, 106, 107, 151
Equality, see Inequality Gould, Α., 155
Esping-Andersen, G., 80., 91, 94, 96, Great Depression, 50, 78, 127, 183
103, 107 Greve, J., 11
Estes, R., 17, 3 5 , 4 6 , 50, 200 Gruat, J. V., 120
Ethnicity, xiii, 19, 24, 35, 46, 50, 57, 59, Guzetta, C., 169
67, 84, 133
Evaluation, see Social welfare, impact
Habermas, J., 109, 147, 148
Hadley, R., 8, 69, 82, 92, 114, 154
Fabian Society, 109, 176 Halliday, F., 39
Faleto, E., 28 Hallen, G. C., 77
Feldstein, D., 98 Hancock, G., 222
Feldstein, M., 124, 146 Harberger, Α., 144
Feminism, 39, 129, 213 Harbison, F. H„ 101, 126
Fields, G. S „ 46 Hardiman, M„ 13, 86, 116, 129, 185
Flora, P., 79, 108 Harris, A , 99, 138
Food and Agricultural Organization Harrison, B., 30, 138
(FAO), 208 Harvey, P., 123
Foucault, M., 109 Hanks, J. W., 174
Frank, A. G., 28, 29, 222 Hasan, N., 77
Freeman, R., 11 Hatch, S., 8, 82, 92, 114, 154
Friedlander, W„ 10., 160, 205, 206 Hawke, B„ 140
Froland, C , 70 Hay, J. R„ 108
Friedman, M„ 109, 144, 145, 146, 201 Hayek, F. von, 109, 145, 201
Friedmann, R., 13 Haynes, K., 174
Frumkin, M., 168 Hayter, T , 222
Fukuyama, F., 33, 101 Health care, 7, 13, 50, 52, 56, 65, 67, 74,
Functionalist theory, 97-98, 100-102 78, 80, 86, 104, 116, 119, 198
Furniss, N., 94, 96 Healy, L., 9, 20, 166, 167, 178, 205,
206
Hecklo, Η , 11. 136, 152
Galaway, B., 192 Hegedus, Z., 39
Heidenheimer, Α., 79 defined 3 , 9 - 1 0
Hewitt, M., 109 approaches, 12-14
Higgins, B„ 185 applied, 159-224
Higgins, J., 99, 108 collaboration, 203-224
Hill, M., 172 history, 10-11
Hills, J., 76, 142 methodological challenges, 17-19

HIV/AIDS 1 5 . 6 7 , 167, 175 professional challenges, 19-20
Hirtz, E , 70 reasons for engaging, 14-17
Hobson, J., 28 terminologies, 9-10
Hodge, P., 184 International Association of Schools of
Hokenstad, M. C , 73, 74, 163, 164, 167, Social Work (IASSW), 10, 159,
169, 170, 172 168, 177, 205, 210
Honigsbaum, F., 104 International Council on Social Welfare
Hopps, J., 172 (ICSW), 2 0 5 , 2 1 0
Horkheimer, M., 148 International Federation of Social
Howards, I., 141 Workers (IFSW), 159, 205, 210,
Housing, 5, 7, 13, 50, 52, 56, 6 2 , 6 4 , 211
116, 117-118, 120 International Labor Organization (ILO),
Hudson, J., 191 1 0 , 1 2 , 18, 4 5 , 1 8 6 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8 ,
Human capital, 126, 196-197 219
Human rights, 57, 59, 213, 214 International Social Security Association
Humanitarianism, see Social conscience (ISSA), 10. 218
theory
International Monetary Fund (IMF), 27,
Huntington, S. P., 146
29, 3 2 , 4 0 , 87, 135, 143. 222
Internationalism, 21-22, 37-40
Janssen, B , 81
Jarrett, M„ 163
Kahn, A. J., 13
Jayasuriya, L., 123
Kant, I., 38
Jencks, C , 126
Kaim-Caudle, P., 13
Jimenez, M., 166, 172, 174
Kamermann, S., 13
Johnson, L. B . , 7 8 , 114, 133
Karger, H. J., 74, 128, 141, 154
Johnson, N., 8, 8 2 , 9 2 , 154
Kaseke, E., 88, 120, 1 5 1 , 2 1 9
Jolly, R., 87, 186
Kassalow, E., 11
Jones, Catherine, 11, 14, 18
Kendall, I., 97
Jones, Chris, 175
Kendall, K., 73, 74,163, 164, 166, 167,
Jones, H„ 175
169, 170, 178
Judge, K., 152, 154
K e r r . C , 101
Keynes, J. M., 109, 127. 135, 183.
194
Ideology, see Normative theory Keynesian theory, 122, 135, 140, 183,
Immigration, xii-xiii, xiv, 5 0 194, 201
Imperialism, 22, 23, 25-26, 28, 32, 38, Khinduka, S. K„ 73, 164, 176, 178
39, 86, 108 Khruschev, N., 5 1 , 8 3
Industrial nations, 28-30, 31, 32, 48-50, Kimbolo, P. J., 7 0
55-57, 79-82, 113-117,136, King, D., 195
168-169 Klein, R., 152
Industrialization, xii, 24, 30-31, 50, 5 1 , Kleinman, 117
54, 7 1 , 7 9 , 8 2 , 9 0 , 9 3 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 Kohl, H., 142, 155
Industrialization and welfare, 90, 93, Kolberg.J., 128
97-98,100-102 Korpi, W., 8 0 . 9 1 , 103, 107
Inequality, 28-30, 52, 53, 55, 59, 6 3 , 6 4 , Koskela, E., 124
79,86,129-133, 141,213 Kramer, D„ 186
Informal sector, 6 3 , 6 4 , 195 Krieger, J., 150, 151
Information technology, xii, 22, 33 Kristoll, I., 114, 146
Interest groups, 103-104 Krugman, P., 31
International social welfare: Ksiezopolski, M., 84
Index
Lane, R„ 163 Micro-enterprises, 86, 193, 198-199

Langan, M., 117, 142 Middleton, S., 138
Lantsev, M. S„ 83 Midgley, J„ 13, 18, 19, 36, 49, 70, 73,
Lasch, C , 48 85, 86, 95, 96, 98, 102, 107, 110,
Lash, S., 148 119, 120, 130, 135, 140, 141, 146,
League of Nations, 27, 205 147, 150, 156, 159, 164, 171, 176,
Lebeaux, C , 80, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186,
Le Grand. J., 130. 131, 142, 152, 153 187, 189. 190, 201. 206, 217, 219,
Leimer, D. R., 124 222
Leiserson, Α., 86, 126, 197 Migration, see Immigration
Lenin, V., 28, 82 Mishra, R., 9 3 , 9 4 , 9 6 , 101, 110, 135,
Lesnoy, 124 137, 140, 142, 150, 153
Levin, H., 98 Mitterand, F , 140, 143
Leung, J., 88 Models of welfare, see Social welfare,
Lightman, E., 143 typologies
Little, K., 70 Moore, T., 31
Livingston, Α., 184 Morawetz, D., 53, 136
Lloyd, G., 168 Morgan, J. S., 11
Lloyd-George, D., 108 Morris, C. T., 193
Loup, J., 53, 193 Morris, M. D., 35, 46
Luxemburg, R., 28 Moser, C., 213, 214
Lynes, T., 10 Mouton, P., 85, 209
Lyons, K., 165 Multinational firms, 31, 32
Munday, B., 172, 175
Murray, C., 109, 115, 125, 147
Macarov, D., 13 Muzumdar, A. M., 99
Madison, B., 13 Myrdal.G., 185
Malloy, J., 104
Mangin, S., 142
Manning, N., 83 Nagpaul. H„ 176, 178
Martinez-Brawley, E„ 179 Nasser, A. G., 35
Marxism, 28-30, 38-39, 51, 78, 82, 91, National Association of Social Workers
104-107, 109, 147-149 (NASW), 172, 177
Mahaffey, M„ 174 Nationalism, 24-26
Mair, L., 10, 205 Nation states, 24, 25-27
Makela,K., 211 Nehru, J., 27
Mao Zedong, 36 Neocolonialism, 27
Marmor, T., 123 New Deal, 78, 133, 183
Marshall, Τ. H., 80, 91., 99, 100, 127, Nisbet, R„ 201
130, 147 Niskanan, W„ 146
Marx, K., 28, 38, 51, 82, 105, 106 Nixon, R., 114, 133, 138
Mashaw, J., 123 Nkruhma, K., 27, 35
Mayadas, N„ 73, 164 Nonaligned nations, 27, 53
Mazibuko, F , 174 Normative theory, 96, 108-110, 145-149
Mazzini, G., 24 North American Free Trade Association
McKendrick, B., 174 (NAFTA), 35
McMillan, H., 137 Novak, M., 147
McNamara, R , 186. 209 Nutrition, 5, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65
McPherson. S.. 13, 19. 73, 86, 95. 98,
119
McShane, D., 32 O'Connor, J., 105, 106, 147, 148, 150
Mead, L., 100, 147 O'Higgins, M., 131, 152, 153
Mercantilism, 25, 80, 91 Offe, C , 80, 91, 105. 106, 147, 148
Mesa-Lago, C , 71, 77, 78, 103, 104, Oil shocks, 50, 139, 186
120. 144, 220
Olasky, M„ 73
Meyers, C. Α., 101
Olsson.S., 114, 122, 153
Mickelson, J., 174
Onokerhoraye, A. G., 11, 13
'λ-Υ) SOCIAL WELFARE IN GLOBAL CONTEXT
Oppenheimer, G. M., 223 Reich, R., 31, 31

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Reidy, Α., 199
Countries (OPEC), 139 Rein, M., 8, 82, 92, 154
Organization for African Unity (OAU), Reisman, D. Α., 12
207 Religion, 6-7, 37-38, 71, 77, 97, 147
Organization for Economic Cooperation Residual/institutional welfare, see Social
and Development (OECD), 207 welfare, typologies
Orloff, Α., 102 Resnick, R. P., 174
OXFAM 34,211 Rich, B„ 32, 222
Richmond, M., 163
Rimlinger, G., 11, 101, 102, 103, 107
Pancoast, D. L., 70 Robson, W„ 98
Patel, L., 11, 13, 174 Roche, M„ 100
Patterson, J., 114 Rodgers, 11, 14, 18
Philanthropy, see Social welfare, Rodney, W., 29
philanthropy Roosevelt, F. D., 78, 133, 183
Phillips, K., 141 Rose, R., 8 , 6 9 , 82, 92, 154, 155
Pierson, C , 79, 135, 136, 137, 142, 152 Rostow, W., 193
Pimlott, B., 137 Ruggles, P., 153
Pinochet, Α., 144 Russell-Wood, A. J. R.,71
Pinker, R., 80, 91, 96, 101, 149 Rys, V., 107
Piven, F. R, 92, 105, 150, 151
Pluralism, see Social welfare, pluralism
Podhoretz, N., 146 Salamon, L., 72, 73, 210
Poor laws 77 Samuelson, R. J., 123
Popper, K., 201 Save the Children Fund, 34
Poverty 32, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 60, 62, Scheurell, R., 13
64, 65, 92, 115, 125, 141, 162, Schultz, J., 115, 128
171, 186, 192, 214 Seldon, Α., 99, 138
Poverty trap, 125 Settlements 16, 73, 162-163
Powell, M., 130, 131 Shawkey, Α., 176, 178
Prigmore, C , 98 Sherer, M., 13
Privatization, see Social welfare, Sherraden, M., 198
commercial welfare Sherraden, M. S., 152
Professions, 16-17 Shonfield, Α., 114
Psacharopolous, G., 126, 197 Shore, Β. K., 7 0
Public choice, 146 Semmel, B., 108
Public social services, see Social Simbi, P., 179, 198
welfare, statutory welfare Simon, R. J., 224
Puccini, G., 39 Singer, H., 185
Putnam, R., 127, 197 Skocpol, T., 81, 102, 104, 150
Smith, Α., 31
Smith, Β , 73, 211
Quadagno, J., 81, 133 Socialism, 80, 91, 103
Social administration, see Social policy
Social assistance, see Social security
Racism, 5, 57, 64, 67, 133, 174 Social capital, 126-127, 197-198
Radical right, 109, 140-145, 145-147, Social conscience theory, 98-99, 199-200
175, 182, 186, 187 Social conditions:
Raheim, S., 199 measurement, 6, 12, 25, 44-47, 56,
Rainwater, L., 8, 82, 92, 154 5 8 , 6 1 , 6 3 , 66
Rank, M., 126 Communist countries, 51-52,
Rao, V., 167 57-59, 82-84
Reagan, R., 140, 141, 145, 146, 147, Industrial countries, 30-31, 48-50,
150, 154 55-57, 79-82
Red Cross, 160, 204, 210 Third World, 25, 28-30, 53-55,
Refugees, 67, 209, 215-217 59-67, 85-88
Index
Social development, 8, 75-77, 110, 156, Stoesz, D . , 7 4 , 128, 154

180-202 Streeten, P., 186, 209
Social indicators, see Social conditions Structural adjustment, 54, 62, 79, 87-88,
measurement 143, 151
Social insurance, see Social security Subsidiarity, 95
Social investment, see Social
development
Social justice, 173-175 Tawney, R. H., 129, 130
Social pedagogy, 165 Taylor-Gooby, P., 99, 109, 136, 138
Social policy, xiii, xiv, 11-12, 19-20, Thane, P., 150
78-88, 89-110, 111-113 Thatcher, M., 138, 140, 141, 142, 145,
Social security, 10, 18, 50, 57, 77, 84, 154
85, 86-87, 88, 101, 102, 103-104, Thomson, C , 143
115-116, 119-120, 128, 130, 143, Third World development, 26-27, 28-29,
209, 217-220 30-32, 53-55,59-60, 76, 123
Social spending, 76, 79, 87, 114, 128, Third World nations, 25-27, 27-30, 32,
139-140, 141-142, 151, 152 35-37, 53-55, 59-67, 70, 79,
Social surveys, 46 85-88, 95, 107, 119-121, 136, 143,
Social welfare: 151, 169-170, 176
defined, 4-6, 69 Thurz, D., 13
commercial, 8, 75-75, 88, 144, 220, Tilton, T , 94, 96
223 Timmins, N., 116, 117, 130
communist (and former Titmuss, R. M., 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18,
communist) nations, 51-52, 70, 7 7 , 9 1 , 9 3 , 9 9 , 101, 109, 117,
82-84, 117-119, 136, 169 127. 130, 131, 155, 199
consensus, see Welfare consensus Trade unions, 49, 83, 94, 103, 139, 141,
crisis, 105-106, 135-156 142
economic effects, 122-129 Tito, B., 27
globalization, xiii-xv, 34, 201-202, Tullock.G., 146
220
history 6-8, 77-79, 81, 135-145,
205-206,217-218 Underclass, 5 0 , 5 7 , 115, 192
impact 16, 109, 111-113 Unemployment, see Employment
industrial nations, 48-50, 79-82, Underdevelopment, 28-30
113-117, 136, 141-143, 168-169 United Nations, 10, 12, 27, 34, 3 5 , 4 5 ,
institutions, 6-9 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 5 9 , 6 1 , 6 2 , 63,
non-formal, 6, 69-71 6 4 , 6 6 , 6 7 , 84, 87, 117, 118, 120,
philanthropy, 6-7, 71-73, 210-212 121, 136, 139, 160, 167, 181, 185,
pluralism, 69, 8 2 , 9 2 , 154-156 186, 187, 204, 206, 207, 213, 214
statutory, 7-8. 68-69, 78-88, United Nations Education and Scientific
89-110, 111-133,217-220 Organization (UNESCO), 208
theory, 14, 89-110, 145-149 United Nations Fund for Population
Third World nations, 53-55, 85-86, Activities (UNFPA), 208
119-121, 136-143, 151, United Nations Children's Fund
169-170, 176, 2 1 9 (UNICEF), 35, 45, 58, 61, 62, 64,
typologies, 92-97 6 6 , 6 7 , 121, 186, 206, 208, 221,
Social work, xiii-xv, 8, 19-20, 73-74, 224
101, 159-179, 184 United Nations Development
Social work education, xiii, xv, 73, Programme (UNDP), 35, 46, 206
167-170 United Nations High Commission for
Specht, H., 176 Refugees (UNHCR), 206, 209,
Stalin, J., 38, 5 1 , 8 2 215, 217
State welfare, see Social welfare, United Nations Research Institute for
statutory Social Development (UNRISD),
Staudt, K., 221 45
Stephens, J., 8 0 , 9 1 , 103 Urry, J., 148
Stewart, F., 87 U.S. Committee for Refugees, 215
Vigilante, J., 13 Wetzel, J. W., 213, 214

Viren, M., 124 Wilding, P., 109, 112, 116
Violence, 5, 56, 59, 64, 65, 67, 84, 127, Wilensky, H., 81, 92, 93, 9 5 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 2
213,214,215,216 Williams, F., 132
von Herder, G., 24 Wilson, E., 132
Wilson, W. J., 50, 57, 115, 192
Wilson, M„ 123
Wagner, R. E., 146 Women, 5, 39, 51, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62,
Wallerstein, I., 25, 29 64, 67, 129, 131-132,212-215,
War, see Violence 221
Watanuki, J., 146 Woodroofe, K., 163, 176
Watkins, K., 5 4 , 6 0 , 6 4 , 65, 88, 121, 143, World Bank, 12, 27, 29, 32, 35, 40, 45,
152, 224 46, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66,
Watts, R., 142 7 1 , 8 7 , 115, 135, 186, 194, 197,
Watts, T. D., 73, 164, 167 209, 220, 222, 223
Welfare capitalism, 80 World Health Organization (WHO), 15,
Welare consensus, 114, 137, 138-140 45, 121, 186
Welfare effort, 13,68 World system theory, 25, 27, 29-30
Welfare exceptionalism, 81-82, 92
Welfare state, 79, 80, 90-92
Wells, H. G., 39 YMCA/YWCA, 211
Wenger, J. K., 70 Younghusband, E., 169
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
J a m e s Midgley is Harry and Riva Specht Professor of Public Social Services and
Dean of the School of Social Welfare at the University of California, Berkeley.
Previously, he was at Louisiana State University, where he was Dean of the School
of Social Work and Associate Vice Chancellor. Prior to serving at LSU, he taught
at the London School of Economics and the University of Cape Town. He has
published 15 books on social work, social policy, and social development and some
50 book chapters and 70 journal articles. He serves on the editorial boards of eight
major journals and has given the Daniel Sanders Memorial Lecture at the Univer
sity of Illinois, the Peter Hodge Memorial Lecture at the University of Hong Kong,
and the Kenneth L. L. Pray Lecture at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1996, he
received the International Rhoda Sarnat Prize from the National Association of
Social Workers for his efforts to enhance public recognition of social work.
245
242573 LV00001B/5/A
CPSIA information can be obtained at w w w ICGtesting.com
Printed in the USA
242573 LV00001B/5/A 242573 LV00001B/5/A

Midgley, James - Social Welfare in Global Context-Sage Publ. (1998) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midgley, James - Social Welfare in Global Context-Sage Publ. (1998) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIAL

For information address:

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications Ltd.

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

New Delhi 110 048 India

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.

ISBN 0-7619-0787-4 (cloth): acid-free paper). — ISBN

0-7619-0788-2 (pbk.: acid-free paper)

Acquiring Editor: Jim Nageotte

1. The Field of International Social Welfare 3

The Notion of Social Welfare 4

PART II. THE ANALYSIS OF

3. Social Conditions in Global Context 43

4. Social Welfare Around the World 68

5. Theories of State Welfare 89

6. The Impact of State Welfare:

An International Assessment 111

7. Social Change and the Future of State Welfare 134

The Crisis of State Welfare 135

Irreversibility in State Welfare 152

Advocating Welfare Pluralism 154

PART III. APPLIED I N T E R N A T I O N A L SOCIAL WELFARE

8. Social Work in International Context 159

The Nature of Professional Social Work 160

Features of the Social Development Approach 181

Through Economic Development 192

Through Social Welfare 196

10. International Collaboration in Social Welfare 203

Forms of International Collaboration 204

Globalization, or internationalization as it is also known, is an increasingly

international economic forces, and the continued immigration of people with

Perhaps the most encouraging signs are to be found in professional schools of

THE SCOPE OF THIS B O O K

THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL

International social welfare is a field of activity concerned with describing,

Two other aspects of the definition of international social welfare need to be

Social Welfare Institutions

enhances social well-being. In some religions such as Buddhism and Christianity,

Describing, analyzing, evaluating, and promoting human welfare in the interna­

Key Terms and Terminologies

more frequently refers to two or a small number of countries. Cross-cultural

As was suggested earlier, the field of international social welfare is vast,

Statistical analyses of comparative welfare conditions have been accompanied

Reasons for Engaging in

It may seem self-evident that it is desirable to become involved in international

As the preceding discussion has attempted to show, engagement in international

Because international social welfare is grounded in scientific knowledge, it is

expands. Although international investigation cannot wait for methodological

tional professional development is to take place on a truly global scale. One

THE GLOBAL WORLD SYSTEM

THE NATURE OF GLOBALIZATION

The phenomenon of globalization is the result of centuries of social, economic,

The Rise of the Nation State

ideologies. Although many embraced democratic socialism or Marxism, their

Discovery of the World System

Although the world is now widely perceived as a collectivity of discrete,

capital and to adopt export-led development strategies has successfully exploited

The concept of globalization is today closely linked to the role of technology,

Describing, analyzing, evaluating, and promoting human welfare in the interna

Nonformal social welfare effort is composed of the numerous day-to-day activi

Professional social work emerged out of the philanthropic activities of organi