An analysis of the welfare system in contemporary capitalist countries

First, the positive role of contemporary capitalist social welfare system

Welfare system is a system in which developed capitalist countries collect a part of national income in the form of tax after the war, and then use it for low-income residents in society to partially improve their low income in the initial distribution. It is the most important distribution mode in contemporary capitalist society. Since its establishment, the welfare system has generally experienced five stages: germination, formation, development, crisis and adjustment. From the end of11950 s to the beginning of11970 s, the welfare system developed into a series of social welfare measures and projects, each with a set of specific contents and detailed regulations. Although one of its original purposes was to eliminate the threat of socialism, it played an inestimable role in alleviating the economic crisis, alleviating the contradiction between labor and capital, ensuring social stability and consolidating the capitalist system after the war. As a social distribution system, it is an important improvement measure adopted by the bourgeois government, an important means to adjust the relations of production in capitalist society, and one of the important reasons for the relative stability and relaxation of class contradictions in post-war capitalist society.

First, narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and maintain social stability. The high welfare of contemporary capitalist countries is realized through high taxes. Governments of various countries have implemented different tax policies for different income classes, especially progressive taxes, which have reduced the unreasonable distribution caused by ownership, narrowed the gap between the rich and the poor, alleviated the contradictions among different interest groups to a certain extent, and enhanced the cohesion under the highly developed market economy system. This tax system is an indispensable "buffer" and "shock absorber" for the stable development of post-war capitalist countries. Extensive social welfare measures have improved people's living conditions, guaranteed the minimum economic requirements and social needs of most people, prevented social unrest to a certain extent, calmed social dissatisfaction, and played a "safety net" role in alleviating social contradictions. At the same time, they instill the rationality of the existing system and values into members of society and reduce the centrifugal force on the existing system. This provides a prerequisite and guarantee for the economic development and social stability of capitalist countries.

Second, adjust social demand and promote economic development. According to the general law, the consumption potential of the low-income class is great, and most of its new income can be converted into real consumption; However, the high-income class is basically saturated in stage consumption, and its new income will be converted into savings or other financial assets to a great extent when new consumption hotspots have not yet appeared. The welfare system "from cradle to grave" has formed a huge safety net covering the basic needs of citizens in the whole society. A large part of residents' family income comes from social welfare, so that residents can live without worries and achieve current consumption or even moderate consumption ahead of schedule. For example, most social welfare expenditures in the United States enter low-income families in the form of government transfer payments. Under the influence of high marginal consumption of poor families or individuals, more than 90% of these payments form social purchasing power, which keeps the American economy in a high state of effective demand. [2] Therefore, the social welfare system, as a form of national income redistribution, can play a "stabilizer" and "regulator" role in economic development. The government can appropriately adjust social demand and stimulate or restrain consumption through welfare expenditure, and moderate welfare expenditure can promote economic development.

Third, promote socialized services and ease employment pressure. The establishment and development of capitalist social welfare system promotes the development of tertiary industry in capitalist countries, because the development of social security system needs corresponding supporting measures, such as vocational training, medical care and other social service departments. On the one hand, the development of these departments has improved the social and cultural living standards, on the other hand, it has increased employment opportunities and eased the pressure of unemployment on society. Social service itself is a huge consumer, which can provide employment opportunities for a large number of laborers. With the slow growth of industrial labor demand, the contribution of public sectors such as social services to increasing employment opportunities and alleviating employment pressure cannot be underestimated. In addition, the welfare system not only guarantees the basic living standard of the labor force physiologically and improves the physical quality of the labor force, but also improves the cultural quality of the labor force through education and other means. In this way, the enhancement of workers' physical strength and mental power improves labor efficiency, and the extension of workers' life span prolongs their labor period, thus ensuring the demand for labor during the period of economic expansion.

Fourth, expand civil liberties and unite and help each other. The social welfare system is universal and benefits almost all citizens. The protection from birth to death increases the ability of the middle and lower classes to resist risks such as unemployment and disease, and helps to liberate individuals from the rigid system, thus expanding the freedom of citizens to design and choose themselves. It can be said that "the welfare state is the highest peak in the long-term evolution of citizenship". [3] In addition, the welfare state is characterized by redistributing a large amount of wealth from the employees to the growing generation and the older generation. Although this kind of help appears in the form of national legislation, it at least embodies a kind of "compulsory" solidarity and mutual assistance.

Second, the malpractice crisis of contemporary capitalist social welfare system

Welfare system is the product of capitalist exploitation for hundreds of years. One of its original purposes was to eliminate the threat of socialism, which really played a positive role in the progress of human society. However, the welfare system of contemporary capitalist society is constantly developing and perfecting, but it is facing a profound crisis, and its disadvantages are increasingly exposed. The traditional welfare system-negative welfare system seems to have come to an end.

First, the unemployment crisis.

Achieving full employment is a core policy of the welfare state, a prerequisite for the state to provide welfare services and income transfer, and a prerequisite and foundation for maintaining the welfare state. Only employment can create welfare, and welfare is the deduction of employees' income. The existence of the unemployed army makes the unemployment welfare expenditure remain high, and the confidence of the unemployed is greatly reduced, resulting in the unemployment crisis in the welfare state.

Excessive social welfare expenditure will eventually be converted into production costs through various taxes. The increase in production costs will inevitably affect the competitiveness of products, which will make employers with sharp enthusiasm reduce the number of employees as much as possible, leading to a decrease in social employment opportunities, followed by an increase in unemployment insurance costs, which will form a vicious circle between unemployment insurance and employment, leading to a high unemployment rate in contemporary capitalist "welfare countries" all the year round. Therefore, welfare is not a means to eliminate unemployment, but a reason to increase unemployment. From 65438 to 0973, the monthly average number of unemployed people in developed capitalist countries was 8.23 million, reaching14.48 million in 1975, an increase of 76%. From 65438 to 0975, the average unemployment rate in Europe was 4.3%, about 6 million people; To 1982, increased to 10%, reaching 30.5 million people. 1980 The unemployment rate in the United States was 7.4%, and 1982 rose to 10.8%, reaching122,000. [4] 1993, 6.8% of workers in the United States are still unemployed, that is, at least 8.743 million American workers can't find jobs. In the middle and late 1990s, the unemployment rate in Europe 15 countries fluctuated around 10% all the time, and the total number of unemployed people reached about 20 million. In Britain, once known as "workers' paradise", only13 of the employable residents are in the traditional employment state. In France, the unemployment rate of young people is close to 20%, and millions of young people are facing the dilemma of "adventure island"; In some bad sunset industries, the unemployment rate is as high as 80%. [5] Large-scale unemployment will inevitably reduce welfare income, expand welfare expenditure, break the balanced budget of the welfare state, and paralyze the welfare state.

Second, the financial crisis.

The crisis of contemporary capitalist welfare state is most concentrated in the national financial crisis. State finance is rigid and its scale can be continuously expanded. But reducing the scale is feasible in theory, but it is extremely difficult to implement, because social welfare has been the object of political transactions of various social interest groups from the beginning. When the economy is booming, various interest groups are committed to dividing up the fiscal surplus. When the economy is depressed, in order to stimulate the economy, the government must expand its fiscal expenditure. The behavior of various interest groups competing for vested interests makes the government's finance rigid. In order to make up the fiscal deficit, the government has to issue more money or deficit bonds. The former will increase the pressure of inflation, while the latter will pass on the present burden to the next government, putting the government's finances in a dilemma. With the increasing coverage of social welfare in the west, more and more people enjoy it and spend more and more, and its growth rate exceeds economic growth, which makes the social welfare expenditure of governments in various countries huge, generally accounting for 1/2 to 2/3 of the total government expenditure, resulting in the deterioration of financial situation. This is how the financial crisis of the welfare system in contemporary capitalist countries is caused.

In 1950s and 1970s, the social welfare expenditure of Britain, a typical "welfare country", increased by 2.7 times, from 14.4% of GDP to 29.4%. In the 1980s, this proportion continued to rise, from 1.983 to 52.7 billion pounds, accounting for 38.2% of the total government expenditure. From 195 1 to 1986, Britain has been running a fiscal deficit for 32 consecutive years, with a cumulative deficit of120.9 billion pounds. [6]

The situation in Germany is also not optimistic. Germany's annual social welfare expenditure accounts for 33% of its GDP. 199 1 year later, the German government debt doubled. In 2002, the German government's fiscal deficit accounted for 3.75% of GDP, which was much higher than the 3% ceiling stipulated in the Stability and Growth Pact of the European Union.

From 1950s to early 1980s, public expenditure in Sweden showed a straight upward trend, and the growth rate was much higher than that of GNP in the same period. In the 1960s, public expenditure accounted for more than 60% of GDP, while the average level of European countries in the same period was 45%. It was not until the 1980s that the trend was controlled and stabilized at 60%. As a result, the national finance is overwhelmed. 1950 ~ 1960, Sweden's central fiscal deficit increased by 1 times, 1960 ~ 1970, and the fiscal deficit increased by four times, 1980. Before the 1970s, the deficit accounted for less than 5% of GDP, but it reached 13% in 1986, which shows that Sweden's fiscal revenue and expenditure are extremely unbalanced. In order to maintain the huge welfare expenditure, the Swedish government was forced to borrow, and the Swedish national debt reached 595.63 billion kronor in 1985, [7] which was satirized as a paradise to live by borrowing money.

Third, the crisis of aging.

In contemporary capitalist countries, the birth rate is low and the average life expectancy is prolonged, which leads to the aging of the population. Population aging is a global problem, and the arrival of an aging society makes the welfare state face an unprecedented burden in pension payment. With the retirement of baby boomers after World War II, aging has become a feature of contemporary capitalist countries. The number of retirees increases, the number of producers decreases, the social insurance premium rate increases year by year, and the income of employees decreases relatively, which inhibits the enthusiasm and consumption of workers. In the past, 4 employees were responsible for 1 retiree. By 2030, in most European countries, every three employees will be responsible for 1 elderly people over 65. In Germany and Italy, the ratio will be 2: 65,438+0. [8]

At present, there are 70 million people who have joined the old-age insurance in Japan, and there are 1 80,000 people who receive pensions, which means that four people support1old people. According to the results of Japan's census, as of 2000, Japan's total population was 654.38+0.26 billion, of which 22 million were elderly people over 65. The proportion of people over 65 years old rose from 7% in 1970 to 17.3% in 2000 and is expected to reach 32.3% in 2050. Of particular concern is the change in the age composition of the elderly. Among the people over 65, the proportion of people over 75 will increase from 4 1% in 2000 to 58% in 2050. In addition to providing for the elderly and medical care, the elderly over 75 need more care and protection, and their dependence on social security has developed by leaps and bounds. [9]

At present, the population over 65 in the United States accounts for 13% of the total population. It will reach or exceed 20% by 2030. The older people get, the greater the medical expenses. At present, the elderly in the United States account for 12% of the population, but they spend13 of the total medical expenses. After 30 years, the proportion of the elderly is about 20%, and medical expenses account for 2/3. [10] By then, the ratio of employees to retirees will be greatly reduced, with an average of 2. 1 employee support 1 retiree. At present, an average of 3.4 employees support 1 retiree. Experts estimate that without reform, after 15, the social security system will be unable to make ends meet, resulting in a deficit. By 2037, the government will be unable to pay pensions. [ 1 1]

According to statistics, the population over 80 in Britain was only 750,000 in the 1940s, 2 million in the 1990s and 3 million in 2020. The ratio of staff to pensioners has also changed accordingly, from/kloc-0 to 5 in the 1940s. 1, 3.3 in the 1990s? 1, 2020 will be 2? 1。 Half of the social security costs need to pay pensions.

Sweden is a long-lived country, and the problem of social aging is more serious. In Sweden, children have no obligation to support the elderly, and society is responsible for everything for the elderly.

Fourth, social crisis.

The heavy burden of social welfare has caused serious social problems such as unemployment, polarization of wealth distribution and widening gap between the rich and the poor, which is manifested in the double imbalance of fairness and efficiency. In terms of fairness, since 1980s, western developed countries have long implemented conservative economic policies represented by Thatcherism and Reagan, cut public expenditure, social welfare and income tax rate, destroyed social security system, aggravated poverty, and became seriously polarized. In terms of interests, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, western countries suffered the worst economic recession after the war. Except for the United States, the economic growth of other developed countries is slow. For example, from 199 1 to 1994, Finland's GDP dropped by 12%, while the unemployment rate soared from 3.5% in 1990 to over 16%. The government's balance of payments changed from a slight surplus to a deficit, exceeding 10% of GDP. Sweden has been hit harder in this respect. GDP has been negative for three consecutive years, and the unemployment rate has risen sharply. As short as 199 1, the unemployment rate rose from 1% to 8%. [ 12]

In addition, the welfare state with high wages has paid a high social price in the new international economic order. First of all, the trend of commercialization has shifted many public sector jobs to the private sector. For example, Britain vigorously promoted privatization in the early 1990s, and 16 state-owned enterprises, including telecommunications companies, natural gas companies and airlines, were all sold. The private sector can reduce the wages of manual workers, putting women at a very disadvantage. Secondly, trade protectionism began to grow in welfare countries, and racism and right-wing extremism began to rise. Some people oppose immigrants and foreign workers, fearing that they will compete for limited job opportunities, and even think that foreigners share various benefits of the welfare state and increase the burden of the welfare state. Others began to oppose free trade with the third world, thinking that fair trade can only be carried out between countries with similar development levels and similar labor standards. It can be seen that these western welfare countries have lost their sense of economic security due to their own reasons, but it is easy to transfer the financial crisis brought about by demographic changes, industrial changes and social changes to foreign workers and trade with third world countries, creating a tense social atmosphere and causing intangible and tangible social pressure on the politics of welfare countries. [ 13]

Fifth, the concept crisis.

Because the welfare system provides people with comprehensive services, some people prefer to live on state subsidies rather than work hard, which breeds the idea of laziness and lack of progress. In capitalist society, workers are not the masters of the means of production. In order to survive, they work hard to get more personal income and pay attention to improving their work. Once the minimum income is guaranteed and the most basic living needs are provided, the role of political and ideological factors, a new motivation to encourage workers to work hard, cannot be produced, thus forming a "dynamic vacuum." There is not much difference between "doing more" and "doing less". The existence and continuation of this situation will inevitably lead to the idea that some people rely too much on society and the country, and produce a social concept that they can survive without doing or doing less work. In a sense, generous social welfare is a kind of "big pot", which makes many people's enterprising psychology decline and their thoughts increase in vain. The high welfare system has created many "senior beggars". To some extent, the situation is just as neoliberalism says: the welfare state weakens the individual's enterprising and self-improvement spirit, and breeds some explosive resentment on the basis of our free society.

For example, in Germany, unemployed workers can get unemployment benefits equivalent to 67% to 53% of their original wages, plus subsidies such as housing and child support and tax exemption. The social welfare benefits of some unemployed workers even exceed the income of low-income people. If both husband and wife are unemployed, they will get more unemployment benefits than couples with only one unemployed person. This unreasonable labor system hinders people's enthusiasm for employment and increases the burden of social welfare.

Canada has 10% citizens living on welfare. Because of free medical care, some idlers regard seeing a doctor as a kind of community communication life, and the government's expenditure on medical care is out of control. The high unemployment rate is inevitably related to the fact that it is too easy to receive unemployment insurance benefits. There is such a thing that the wife of a Somali warlord in Africa came to Canada with four children as refugees, and the government gave her a monthly welfare of 1500 Canadian dollars; A group of Somali refugees saw that Canada's welfare funds were so easy to get, so they applied to the Toronto community in six or seven names, but they all succeeded. As a result, the number of people who make a living by reaching out is increasing, the people's fighting spirit is declining, and the country's economy is naturally devastated. [ 14]

Look at Sweden again. Under the high welfare system, the income gap between those who work and those who don't work is less than 20%, so Swedes lying in the "cradle" of high welfare are less motivated to work, and their attitude towards leave and absence is also rash. As the Swedes themselves say, they have created "two new highs", that is, people have the highest life expectancy, the highest absenteeism rate and the highest sick leave rate. Nowadays, unwillingness to work and aversion to work have become a common concern in Sweden.

So it is caught in a contradictory cycle: while the unemployment rate is high, the labor supply in the welfare state is insufficient. The shortage of labor supply is not only the influence of low birth rate and aging population, but also the lack of incentive mechanism for overly generous welfare security.

Sixth, the institutional crisis.

The full implementation of "welfare system" in contemporary capitalist society has also led to institutional crisis. Mainly manifested in two aspects: low administrative efficiency and unreasonable structure. Administrative inefficiency is a common problem in human organizational structure, and the unreasonable structure is because the social security system is restricted by various aspects in its development process, thus ignoring a basic principle in management, that is, the consistency of goals and standards.

As a welfare country that implements "all-round protection and universal protection", it is necessary to manage various social security facilities and arrange welfare undertakings for a large number of welfare recipients. The government must organize a team of experts of all levels and types. In this way, the bureaucratic system of the government permeates all aspects of social and economic life. The expenditure of this huge organization sometimes even exceeds the cost of welfare allowance provided to residents. The huge and bloated organization is slow, inefficient and bureaucratic. From 1960 to 1975, the proportion of employees in Sweden has changed as follows: the government has increased from 28% to 41%; Agriculture, forestry and fishery decreased from 16.5% to 6.7%; The industrial and mining industry decreased from 29. 1% to 26. 1%. In the same period, the number of British government personnel increased from 265,438 +0.9% to 28.2%. The public medical service in Britain is famous for its inefficiency.

In addition, the lax management of the welfare system has led to serious welfare fraud and a large loss of funds. A survey shows that a quarter of people in Britain cheat on welfare funds, and two-thirds of people who receive disability benefits do not have enough disability certificates. The government loses 4 billion pounds a year, which is enough to build 100 hospitals. [ 16]

Seventh, the political crisis.

The social welfare system in contemporary capitalist countries is intertwined with political struggle, which affects political stability. In order to win the election, various political parties have promised voters to expand social welfare, and whether social welfare is realized or not has become a big political bargaining chip. Social welfare payments can only be increased but not decreased, otherwise it will lead to a political crisis. Once the government tries to cut subsidies, it will meet with strong opposition and end in failure.

For example, the welfare problem in Britain has become one of the focuses of partisan struggle. In order to win the support of voters in the election, both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party claimed to be advocates of a "welfare state" and promised various social benefits to voters. The Labour Party advocates the "popularization" of social welfare. From 65438 to 0945, the Labour Party made a promise in the election campaign: let citizens enjoy welfare generally and let the state shoulder the responsibility of protecting citizens' welfare. The Conservative Party advocates "selective" social welfare. In order to solve the problem of excessive welfare expenditure, 1979, after the Conservative Party came to power, it emphasized the role of the market mechanism, reduced the state's intervention and regulation of the economy, privatized some welfare institutions, lowered the income tax rate, and cut and canceled some insurance subsidies. The welfare reform of the Conservative government has obviously widened the gap between the rich and the poor, causing strong dissatisfaction among the people. 1After Blair's Labor Party came to power in May 1997, it emphasized the balance between government regulation and market mechanism, economic development and social justice, and took a middle road between the traditional "cradle to grave" welfare state and the "free market economy" advocated by the Conservative Party, that is, the "third road". With the serious stagflation of the economy, the quarrel between the two parties on social welfare issues will become more and more fierce, but neither party will easily cancel welfare measures and cut social security expenditures. The situation in Sweden is very similar to that in Britain.

In short, in contemporary capitalist countries, the burden of social welfare is heavy, which has dragged down economic development, and the economic recession has made huge welfare expenditures unsustainable. In order to break this vicious circle, since 1980s, contemporary capitalist countries have taken measures to adjust and reform the traditional social welfare system, trying to change negative welfare into positive welfare, social welfare country into social investment country, and "fire fighting" into "fire prevention". But it is quite difficult to carry out the reform to the end.