| |
Contributions from
the Column
Books and Media
New International Poverty Programmes: Neo-liberalism with a human face?
Social security – victim of neo-liberalism?
Decentralisation in Mozambique – input to peace and democracy
Many donors, little efficiency
11/2003 |
|
[ Insufficient explanation ]
Social security – victim of neo-liberalism?
The beginnings of social policy measures can be traced back to the first half of the 20th century not only in the western industrialised nations but also in some developing countries, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe. That is the starting point of this anthology. The main thesis in the editors' introduction is that a development strategy based on the domestic market favours the building up of social security systems becauase spending on social services creates buying power on that market. That is why, they say, social policy measures received a boost when the Great Depression of 1929 ushered in the transition from an export-oriented development model to one based on domestic markets. That applied also to peripheral countries, provided they were not still colonies. By contrast, the change to neo-liberalism since 1980 has nullified much of the progress made because it has been concomitant with a return to orientation on exports. Attempts to counteract the ensuing and increasing inequality by means of social policy measures have been abandoned.
The introduction is followed by regional and countries studies, some of which - such as those on Chile, Brazil and Turkey – differ from its theses. But this approach proves to be only partly convincing. The finding that countries developed a social policy once they had to integrate a growing urban working class in political terms, and that often this policy was a means of belated nation-building, is stimulating. Basically, it makes sense to see a country's social policy together with its prevailing development model. However, the fact that the introduction and some of the case studies reduce all development models to two types – domestic market-oriented import substitution, which has been replaced by neo-liberalism – muddies the view of country-specific peculiarities of both development and social policy.
Moreover, various social policy models are feasible under the same economic conditions. Country studies of the second group make that clear. This is shown, for instance, by comparing Costa Rica and Mexico. Under the same external circumstances and similar level of development, two countries can take different paths on social policy. The reasons for that are due often to the respective social structure and political culture. An article on Taiwan and South Korea finds that the political system, particularly the issue of democracy, marks the way to a welfare state.
Therefore deriving from the trend to neo-liberalism a worldwide renunciation of social policy falls too short. More interesting is, first, the question of why some countries do better than others in adjusting their social security systems to the new circumstances. Second, greater account must be taken of the fact that abandoning current social security models can also be due to material problems such as demographic change. And third, some articles in the anthology tend to derive social policy from development strategy without, in reverse, also asking whether and how social security institutions have an impact on a country's domestic and economic policies.
Johannes Jäger, Gerhard Melinz, Susan Zimmermann (Eds.):
Sozialpolitik in der Peripherie. Entwicklungsmuster und Wandel in Lateinamerika, Afrika, Asien und Osteuropa. [Social Policy on the Periphery. Development Patterns and Change in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.]
Frankfurt/Main, Vienna, Brandes and Apsel, Südwind 2002, 256 pp., Euro 19.90,
ISBN 3-86099-213-9 [in German]
|
