CHAPTER TWO
2.10 WELFARE SYSTEMS AND WELFARE PLURALISM: INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN WELFARE
Bank's conditions on structural adjustment loans, national indebtedness and further adverse movements in the terms of trade have meant that many countries, and particularly those in Africa, have seen vast reductions in public expenditure. This has led to the withdrawal of State-provided services. Local organisations and higher level NGOs have stepped into these vacuums in an attempt to maintain basic levels of service (Turner and Hulme 1997:207). African governments are increasingly calling upon communITY development associations that are home area associations to fill the gap created by the retreating state (Atampurge 1998:354).
Another problem cited in the literature for the limited impact of social policy in Africa has been the adoption of inappropriate Western approaches. However, as Midgley (1997:121) pOints out, not all policies have been shaped by foreign influences and some have developed unique forms of social provision, such as community development, that are suited to local realities. Many governments are now reformulating their social policies to enhance their appropriateness: Karger (1996:11) suggests, in rethinking policies in Africa in the global context, that values such as productivity, reciprocity, familial responsibility, social cohesion and social choice must direct social welfare policy in Africa.
According to Lund (1998:3) South Africa has an extremely well-developed set of welfare organisations, and social service provision compared to many African countries. The present welfare structure in South Africa is based on welfare pluralism lines. However, they far from meet the needs of the population.
2.10 WELFARE SYSTEMS AND WELFARE PLURALISM: INTERNATIONAL
part) are being pressured by communities suffering the effects of economic recession to consider welfare policy models of a more institutionalised nature. At the same time, a number of developed countries which adopted institutionalised modefs (such as Sweden and the UK) are now reassessing their policies, primarily for economic reasons. Similar rethinking is also occurring in many developing countries adapting to transition periods of post-colonialism and increasing democracy (Weekes 1994:226).
The trend in global economy is towards free market capitalism (Gould 1993:7). In the West and in Eastern Europe today, the old 'capitalism versus socialism' debate is regarded as outdated. The last century closed with an international retreat from the comprehensive provision of the northern welfare state (Lund 1998:2). By 1990 the Marxist-Leninist road to socialism appeared to be unsuccessful both in the semi-peripheral areas (like the USSR and Eastern Europe) and in the contested Third World (Garner 1996:176). Few governments or significant opposition parties currently advocate specially socialist policies, and they have largely been dropped from conventional policy discourse (Ife 1995:5).
Gould (1993:237) is of the opinion that what we are now witnessing is the development of a new convergence towards welfare pluralism. Many countries have begun to move in the direction of welfare pluralism. A welfare system is a term which can be used to cover the different welfare mixes which allows for welfare pluralism. These can take a variety of forms and include various combinations of state, voluntary, fiscal, occupational, private and informal welfare (Gould, 1993, 237). This is illustrated by a mixed economy of care in the United Kingdom. However, within this model of welfare pluralism the State continues to play an important role in the delivery of welfare.
Economic rationalisation and privatisation has also received some support. This was predicted by Schire (1992:204) who observed that in the 1990s more attention would probably be directed at the institutional framework in a country
71
which will allow the market and state to interact in such a manner as to promote efficiency and equity, perhaps along social market lines. These were the policies of Thatcher and Reagan, \rVhere the aim was to dismantle state structures for public provision of services, and to replace them with market-driven, private sector activity. This is in the belief that the market with minimal or no regulation, is the best mechanism for the provision of human service in that it maximises efficiency, encourages competition and maximises individual choice and accountability to the consumer. The government's role is seen as minimal and policy directions include privatisation, 'user pay', private insurance and other systems (Ife 1995:5).
Morris (cited in Gould 1993:7) has shown that the following occurred with regard to welfare in these countries. :
• Increases in public expenditure were curtailed.
• Fees for public services vvere increased.
• Eligibility for benefits was tightened.
• Privatisation of many public services occurred.
• Government became a producer rather than a provider of services in the move towards a mixed economy of welfare.
• Means testing increased.
Non-governmental organisations have increasingly been called to fill the gap created
by
the withdrawal of the State from social service provision. Robinson and White (1997:25) are of the view that "given the movement towards pluralisation of provision, it is not surprising that increasing attention has been devoted to exploring the complex issues of inter-institutional co-ordination to new systems of provisions. Complementarity seen in terms of the State providing an enabling environment, is a common feature of current thinking about inter- institutional relations in the developmental field, operating not only through regulation, but also through subsidies and various forms of contracting. Thecurrent thinking is on co-production, synergy, partnership and closer, more intense and enduring, forms of institutional collaboration."
South African policy makers are well aware of the effects of global trends, and a mixed economy of care is advocated, which is illustrated by the following quotation:
Caution and critical analysis wilf be exercised in considering the applicability and possible incorporation of such models into the change process in South Africa. This will certainly be the case wffh the move towards cost-reduction and privatisation and contracting out of state services.
The government is welt aware that in some countries this bias had adverse effects, in terms o(
declining service standards, worsening condffions of employment for staff. rising unemployment and the increase marginafisation of disadvantaged groups, women and children in particular The move towards a leaner and more cost-effective public service in South Africa will therefore be based, not on privatisation but on the creation of effective partnerships between partnerships between govemment, labour, business and civil society, and the building of high levels of community invofvement in the local delivery of services. (White Paper on the Transforming of The Public Service Summary 1995:8).
Overall there has been radical changes to welfare policy in South Africa. There has been a shift from a residual model of practice to a developmental model.
However there are many contradictions in policy in South Africa. A major contradiction is the adoption of GEAR as its macro-policy framework which is not compatible with developmental social welfare. Developmental social welfare has brought with it new challenges and demands. Internationally and in Africa welfare pluralism is being advocated. This involves greater participation of civil society and the non profit sector in the welfare sector.
73