Social protection systems in Europe – benefits and services

  A comparison between Spain and Austria  

  Introduction  4

1.  European activities for social safeguard  5

1.1  Charta of Fundamental Rights: social safeguard related content  6

2.  Typologies of welfare states  8

2.1  Conservative-corporatist welfare states  12

2.2  Social democratic welfare states  13

2.3  The Mediterranean Model  14

2.4  The Anglo-Saxon Welfare state  15

3.  Organization and sourcing of the Welfare State in Spain and Britain  17

3.1  Spain  17

3.2  Austria  19

4.  Comparison of benefits: Austria Spain  21

4.2  Developments of Social Safeguard and consequences for  

  addressees  29

  Spain  29

  Austria  33

  Summary  38

  Literature  40

3

Introduction

ocial safeguard is a base to the European system of welfare S states. The first section of this work thus will shortly figure out the claims of the EU concerning national and international welfare and standards of social security demanded from its member states. The second chapter will introduce Esping-Andersens typology of welfare states and similar typologies like those of Abrahamson, Leibfried and Kleinmann will also be introduced. Chapter three will shortly figure out the financial and functional systems of the national social welfare programs of Spain and Austria to proceed with a description of the social welfare services. In chapter 4 aid money programs for unemployment, pensions, basic social care, mother-/fatherhood and health care will (i.e. as a single mother) be scrutinized in detail. The second part of chapter 4 will focus changes and reforms in these countries concerning the social systems within the last years with respect to the living conditions of its addressees.

4

A comparison between Spain and Austria

1. European activities for social safeguard

In 1989 the EU passed the Social Charta to define social rights of employees. Twelve chapters codified the rights of employees which ranged from occupational freedom, equal opportunities for men and women, employee participation to integration of handicapped persons. In 2000, a convent consisting of representatives from the fifteen national member parliaments as well as of parliamentarians from the European Parliament fundamental defined social principles within the Charta of Fundamental Rights which was proclaimed in Nice on December 7 ^th 2000. The Charta divides into 54 articles and seven chapters defining subsections as the following: human dignity, civic liberties, equality, solidarity, civil rights, judicial rights and general regulations. Just like the Social Charta the Charta of Fundamental Rights still lacks of legal obligation, since both are part of the European Constitution, which has not yet been ratified by all member countries. Nevertheless it has to be kept in mind that these constitutions sum up policies that have been stipulated in several European laws. In the next chapter the core policies concerning social safeguard within the Charta of Fundamental Rights will be correspondingly but in summary illustrated.

5

1.1 Charta of Fundamental Rights: social safeguard related content

Article 15: European citizens are free to choose their vocational education in any of the EU member states. They are also free to run for a job and make a living in any of the member states. Members of third countries have the right to work under the same conditions and for the same wages as citizens of the EU.

Chapter 21 (1): Discrimination due to gender, race, colour of skin, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion of world view, political or other opinion, membership of national minority, wealth, birth, handicap, age or sexual orientation are forbidden. Article 26: The European Union approves the claims of handicapped people for warranty of independence, social and occupational integration and partition in social life.

Article 29: Every person has the right for cost free services of employment exchange.

Article 31 (2): Every employee has the right for restriction of maximal labour time, daily or weekly off-time as well as annual vacation with pay.

Article 33 (2): To conciliate work and family life, every person has the right for protection from discharge in connection with maternity as well as demands for maternity and family leave with pay after birth or adoption.

Article 34 (1): The EU recognises and respects the right to grant services of social safeguard and services in cases of maternity,

6

A comparison between Spain and Austria

illness, accident at work, requirement for personal care, age, discharge according to EU and state laws.

(3): To fight against social exclusion and poverty the EU recognises and respects the right for social support for accommodation to guarantee humane existence according to EU and state laws. Chapter VII Article 51(1): Within this chapter dealing with general regulations it is emphasized that all regulations of the charta underlie the subsidiarity principle and only concern European laws. 1

¹ Sozial-Kompass Europa, S. 6f

7

2. Typologies of welfare states

Concerning the subsidiarity principle it has to be pointed out that the EU has to recognize and respect national law, whether it fulfils all obligations of the Charta or not. Thus Europe unifies several distinct systems of social welfare states, as Kleinmann pointed out: “At present, there is no European welfare state. What do exist are fifteen separate welfare states.” ² While in the 1980ies and beginning 1990ies welfare state studies pointed out similarities between their systems, especially with Esping-Andersens typology in 1990, comparative studies began to focus on the differences between the systems of social. While some scholars focussed on historical origins of such differences especially with regard to class politics and social structure (Baldwin, 1991; Skocpol 1992) others (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Abrahamson, 1992; Leibfried, 1993) began to differ between “welfare state regiments” with the assumption “that welfare states cluster around certain distinct regimes”. ³ The most influential comparative study has been Esping-Andersens “The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism” (1990) which is based on the key concepts of ‘de-commodification’ of labour and the welfare state as system of stratification. By this, commodification means that the worker’s material welfare depends on the sale of their labour. Esping-Andersen argues that through modernization and citizenship “the introduction of modern social rights implies a loosening of the pure commodity status. De-commodification

² Kleinmann, p. 28

³ Kleinmann, p. 28

8

A comparison between Spain and Austria

occurs when a service is rendered as a matter of right, and when a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market”. ⁴ Esping-Andersen relates the degree of decommodification to each of his three basic types of welfare states. He claims that especially in the Anglo-Saxon states, which are dominated by social assistance and thus provide a low level of means and benefits, de-commodification is also on a low level. In his second group of countries with compulsory state social insurance, there are relatively good services for beneficiaries. But since in these states benefits depend on contributions, in turn depending on work and employment, de-commodification can also hardly be achieved. Esping-Andersens third model is the “Beveridge-type” which offers full de-commodification. Put aside to his minimal definition of de-commodification where “citizens can freely, and without potential loss of job, income or general welfare, opt out of work when they themselves consider it necessary” ⁵ , de-commodification seems to be a maximal claim on social insurance, not provided by any country within the EU. Esping-Andersen additionally dismisses the view that social policy must inevitably lead to greater equality and redistribution but that each welfare system in contrary gives rise to a particular type of social stratification. Kleinmann points out that the traditional social insurance corporatist state was promoted by conservative reformers like Bismarck to consolidate class differences among wage earners and to tie loyalties to the central state authority. In

⁴ Esping- Andersen (1990), p. 22

⁵ Esping- Andersen (1990), p. 23

9