Перевод «state welfare» на русский

What Is a Welfare State?

The term «welfare state» refers to a type of governing in which the national government plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. A welfare state is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions of a good life. Social Security, federally mandated unemployment insurance programs, and welfare payments to people unable to work are all examples of the welfare state.

Most modern countries practice some elements of what is considered the welfare state. That said, the term is frequently used in a derogatory sense to describe a state of affairs where the government in question creates incentives that are beyond reason, resulting in an unemployed person on welfare payments earning more than a struggling worker. The welfare state is sometimes criticized as being a «nanny state» in which adults are coddled and treated like children.

Key Takeaways

  • The welfare state is a way of governing in which the state or an established group of social institutions provides basic economic security for its citizens.
  • By definition, in a welfare state, the government is responsible for the individual and social welfare of its citizens.
  • Most modern countries have programs that are reflective of a welfare state, such as unemployment insurance and welfare payments.
  • However, the term «welfare state» is a charged one, as critics of such a system say it involves too much government involvement in the lives and well-being of citizens.

Возможные минусы государства всеобщего благосостояния

Помимо крайне оптимистичного развития событий согласно теории возможно наличие отрицательных качеств:

  1. Падение уровня конкурентоспособности выпускаемых товаров в стране.
  2. Высокое налогообложение.
  3. Падение уровня заработной платы за счеты вычета большого процента в государственную казну.
  4. Отток капитала за границу.
  5. Уменьшение уровня активности населения в плане развития и повышения своих профессиональных качеств.
  6. Наличие мнимых безработных и иждивенцев в разнообразных слоях населения.

Таким образом, теория не смогла полностью завоевать доверие по всему миру. Но есть страны, которые видоизменили ее под свои потребности и существуют согласно ее основным принципам.

What Is A Welfare State?

Every elected or appointed government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from economic and social injustices and preserving their dignity. All of the government projects and policies should aim at improving the quality of life and providing an environment for growth and development. Sanctions have been imposed on countries such as Syria, Burma, Iran, and Cuba for violating human rights including interfering with the welfare of their citizens. However, in some countries, the government plays an extensive role in the provision of social and economic benefits and protection of their rights and privileges. Countries which promote the welfare of their citizens are referred to as the Welfare States.

Формирование рыночной экономики

Устойчивость любых преобразований напрямую зависела от статуса государства на международном рынке. Внедрение социальных реформ шло параллельно с модернизацией промышленности. Правительство Швеции разработало первую в мире модель социальной демократии, целью которой являлось искоренение бедности.

В стране внедрялась смешанная форма экономики частные предприятия сотрудничали с государственными структурами, которые выполняли функцию равномерного распределения доходов. Такую модель переняли все европейские государства, в том числе Западная Германия, благодаря чему уже к началу 1948 года, в стране была стабилизирована национальная валюта, возобновились социальные выплаты.

Для работников фабрик и заводов вводилась система профсоюзной защиты, что позволило не только поднять уровень производства, но и полностью побороть безработицу в государстве. Такие изменения стали предпосылкой для «экономического чуда» 1950-60-х годов, когда ФРГ буквально за десять лет смогла войти в число наиболее весомых субъектов мировой экономики.

В 60- х годах подобная экономическая программа начала активно внедряться в США. Уже к концу 1968 года были достигнуты ощутимые положительные результаты в США практически не существовало незащищенных слоев населения. Социальные выплаты по безработице в этот период были равны размерам статистической средней зарплаты наемного работника. 

Three worlds of the welfare state

According to Esping-Andersen (1990), there are three ways of organizing a welfare state instead of only two.

Esping-Andersen categorised three different types of welfare states in the 1990 book ‘The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’. Though increasingly criticised (for a review of the debate on the Three worlds of Welfare Capitalism see Art and Gelissen and Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser), these classifications remain the most commonly used in distinguishing types of modern welfare states, and offer a solid starting point in such analysis. It has been argued that these typologies remain a fundamental heuristic tool for welfare state scholars, even for those who claim that in-depth analysis of a single case is more suited to capture the complexity of different social policy arrangments. Welfare typologies have the function to provide a comparative lens and place even the single case into a a comparative perspective (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011) .

Esping-Andersen (1990) constructed the welfare regime typology acknowledging the ideational importance and power of the three dominant political movements of the long 20th century in Western Europe and North America, that is Social Demcoracy, Christian Democracy(conservatism) and Liberalism (Stephens 1979; Korpi 1983; Van Kersbergen 1995; Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011). The ideal Social-Democratic welfare state is based on the principle of universalism granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of autonomy, limiting the reliance of family and market (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011) . In this context, social policies are perceived as ‘politics against the market’ (Esping-Andersen 1985). Christian-democratic welfare states are based on the principle of subsidiarity and the dominance of social insurance schemes, offering a medium level of decommodification and a high degree of social stratification. The liberal regime is based on the notion of market dominance and private provision; ideally, the state only interferes to ameliorate poverty and provide for basic needs, largely on a means-tested basis. Hence, the decommodification potential of state benefits is assumed to be low and social stratification high (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011) .

Based on the decommodification index Esping-Andersen divided into the following regimes 18 OECD countries (Esping-Andersen 1990: 71): 1. Liberal: Australia, Canada, Japan, Switzerland and the US; 2. Conservative: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy; 3. Social Demcoratic: Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden 4. Not clearly classified: Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. These 18 countries can be placed on a continuum from the most purely social-democratic, Sweden, to the most liberal country, the United States (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011) .

Rothstein argues that in the first model, the state is primarily concerned with directing the resources to “the people most in need”. This requires a tight bureaucratic control over the people concerned. Under the second model, the state distributes welfare with as little bureaucratic interference as possible, to all people who fulfill easily established criteria (e.g. having children, receiving medical treatment, etc.). This requires high taxation. This model was constructed by the Scandinavian ministers Karl Kristian Steincke and Gustav Möller in the 30s and is dominant in Scandinavia. The third model is similar to the one found in Britain (Beveridge model) and is based more on citizenship and a certain level of welfare ‘as a right’, which may then be modified according to needs.

Evolution Of Welfare State

The early welfare state focused on poverty relief as form of social welfare. They were founded on state provision with the government providing all the basic needs for the needy. However, by 1930s the welfare state had expanded to include democracy, welfare, and capitalism arguing that citizenship must include access to socio-political and civil rights. Consequently, the term welfare state is used to refer to countries where social rights are accompanied by both civil and political rights. Worldwide Great Depression which brought about social suffering including unemployment to thousands of people was very instrumental in the establishment of a welfare state in most countries. The activities of the modern welfare state include the provision of cash benefits and in-kind services.


ˈwelfeə noun
1. mental and physical health; living conditions. welsyn رفاهِيَّه، صالِح благосъстояние bem-estar blaho das Wohlergehen vel; velfærd ευημερία, υγεία, καλοπέρασηbienestar heaolu سلامت و آسايش hyvinvointi bien-êtreרווחה कल्याण dobrobit, blagostanje jól(l)ét kesejahteraan velferð, velmegun benessere, bene 福利 행복, 복지 gerovė labklājība kebajikan welzijnveldobrobyt, szczęściebem-estar stare bună a sănătăţii; bunăstare благополучие blaho(byt), prosperita blagor dobrobit välfärd, väl ความมีสุขภาพดี; สวัสดิภาพ sağlık, afiyet, refah 身心健康,福祉 добробут, достаток فلاح و بہبود khoẻ mạnh; thịnh vượng 幸福,康乐

2. money or aid given by government to people in need. welsyn مُساعَدَة إجْتِماعِيَّه получавам социални помощи viver em segurança sociální dávky die Wohlfahrt bistandshjælp πρόνοιαasistencia social, prestaciones de la seguridad social toetus كمك هزينه بهزيستي sosiaaliavustus aide sociale סעד socijalna pomoć állami támogatás tunjangan dari pemerintah assistenza 生活保護 복지 보조비 pašalpa sociālais pabalsts bantuan kebajikan bijstand sosialtrygdzasiłekпособие podpora socialna podpora socijalna pomoć socialunderstöd สวัสดิการ sosyal yardım 福利 грошова допомога, яка надається для поліпшення побутових умов (незаможних тощо) ضرورت مندوں کے لیے حکومت کی طرف سے دی جانے والی امداد tiền trợ cấp 福利

ˈchild welfare noun
1. aid provided to dependent children. kinderwelsyn مُساعَده للأولاد المُحتاجين детски помощи direitos infantis přídavky na děti die Kinderwohlfahrt børneunderstøttelse παροχή βοήθειας σε παιδιά ayuda (estatal/social) a la infancia lastehoolekanne, -toetus كمك به كودكان نامستقل lastenhuolto aide à l’enfance קִצבַת יְלָדִים आश्रित बच्चों को दी जाने वाली सहायता socijalna pomoć djeci gyermekgondozási támogatás tunjangan anak assegno familiare 児童福祉手当 아동 복지 vaikų rūpyba bērnu pabalsts kebajikan kanak-kanak kinderzorg barnetrygd opieka społeczna помощь нуждающимся детям štátna výpomoc deťom otroški dodatek dečiji dodatak social omsorg för barn การสงเคราะห์ต่อเด็ก çocuk yardımı 兒童福利 допомога, яка надається дітям-утриманцям ضرورت مند بچوں کو دی جانے والی امداد sự hỗ trợ trẻ em 儿童福利

2. concern for the living conditions etc of children. kinderwelsyn خِدْمَة إجْتِماعِيَّه للأولاد социален Oficial dos direitos infantis sociální péče týkající se dětí die Kinder- und Jugendhilfe børneværns- κοινωνική πρόνοια ανήλικων παιδιών protección social infantil hoolekanne اهميت به شرايط زندگي كودكان lastensuojelu protection de l’enfance פִּקיד סַעַד बच्चों की जीवन स्थिति इत्यादि पर चिंतित službenik socijalne pomoći djeci gyermekgondozás (pekerja) kesejahteraan anak assistenza infantile 児童福祉 아동 복지와 관련된 일 vaikų globa bērnu aprūpe kebajikan kanak-kanak kinderbescherming barnevern opieka społeczna социальное обеспечение неимущих детей sociálny pracovník starajúci sa o deti otroško skrbstvo briga o deci social omsorg för barn สวัสดิภาพของเด็ก çocuk esirgeme 關心兒童福利的 охорона дитинства بچوں کی حالت زندگی سے متعلق فکر sự chăm sóc trẻ em 关心儿童福利的

welfare state a country which runs insurance schemes for its inhabitants, supplying them with free medical care, pensions etc. welsynstaat دَوْلَة رَفاه إجْتِماعي социална държава estado de segurança social sociální stát der Wohlfahrtsstaat velfærdsstat κράτος πρόνοιας estado de bienestar heaoluriik نظام بهزيستي اجتماعي hyvinvointivaltio État-providence מְדִינַת רְווָחָה कल्याणकारी देश socijalna država jóléti állam negara adil makmur velferðarríki stato sociale/assistenziale 福祉国家 복지 국가 visuotinės gerovės valstybė vispārējas labklājības valsts negara kebajikan welvaartsstaat velferdsstat państwo opiekuńcze estado de segurança social ţară cu sis­tem de protecţie socială государство всеобщего благосостояния sociálny štát, ,,štát blahobytu« socialno dobro urejena država država sa socijalnim osiguranjem välfärdsstat ระบบสวัสดิการที่รัฐบาลให้แก่ประชาชนทางด้านต่าง ๆ refah toplumu 福利國家 держава загального добробуту فلاحی ریاست hệ thống phúc lợi xã hội 福利国家

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary 2006-2013 K Dictionaries Ltd.

Modern Welfare State

The Welfare state is based on the principle of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of resources, and public participation for all. It involves the utilization of funds from the government or state to the service provided including education, healthcare, and pension plan. The funds are derived from taxation of large income tax to reduce the income disparities in the country. The modern welfare state includes democracy, welfare, and capitalism. The modern welfare state nations include Nordic Countries (Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, and Finland), Germany, France, and Netherlands. The developed welfare states are divided into three groups; Liberal, Social Democratic, and Conservatives.


В 2014/15 финансовом году государственные пенсии были в подавляющем большинстве случаев крупнейшими государственными расходами на социальное обеспечение и составили 86 500 000 000 фунтов стерлингов, за которыми следовало жилищное пособие , которое составило более 20 000 000 000 фунтов стерлингов. Расходы на пособия включали: 2 300 000 000 фунтов стерлингов, выплаченные безработным, и 27 100 000 000 фунтов стерлингов. людям с низкими доходами и 27 600 000 000 фунтов стерлингов для налоговых льгот для физических лиц.

Расходы правительства Великобритании на социальное обеспечение в 2011–2012 годах (в процентах)

 Государственная пенсия (46%)

 Пособие на жилье (11%)

 Пособие по инвалидности (8%)

 Пенсионный кредит (5%)

 Поддержка дохода (4%)

 Скидки на аренду (3%)

 Надбавка за посещаемость (3%)

 Пособие соискателям работы (3%)

 Пособие по нетрудоспособности (3%)

 Льгота по муниципальному налогу (3%)

 Другое (11%)

Расходы правительства Великобритании на социальное обеспечение, 2014–2015 гг.
Выгода Расходы (млрд фунтов)
Государственная пенсия 86,5
Налоговые льготы ( действующие налоговые льготы и налоговые льготы для детей ) 29,7
Жилищное пособие 23,5
Пособие по инвалидности 15.4
Пособия по нетрудоспособности 14.1
Пособие на ребенка 11,6
Пенсионный кредит 6,6
Пособие по уходу 5,4
Пособие соискателя работы 3.1
Поддержка доходов 2,6
Выплата по материнству и отцовству 2,4
Пособие по уходу 2.3
Зимние платежи за топливо 2.1
Военные пенсии 0,8
Универсальный кредит 0,1
Другой 5.9

Welfare expenditure

There is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure.

The table does not show the effect of expenditure on income inequalities, and does not encompass some other forms of welfare provision (such as occupational welfare).

The table below shows, first, welfare expenditure as a percentage of GDP for some (selected) OECD member states, with and without public education, and second, GDP per capita (PPP US$) in 2001:

Nation Welfare expenditure
(% of GDP)
omitting education
Welfare expenditure
(% of GDP)
including education
GDP per capita (PPP US$)
Denmark 29.2 37.9 $29,000
Sweden 28.9 38.2 $24,180
France 28.5 34.9 $23,990
Germany 27.4 33.2 $25,350
Belgium 27.2 32.7 $25,520
Switzerland 26.4 31.6 $28,100
Austria 26.0 32.4 $26,730
Finland 24.8 32.3 $24,430
Netherlands 24.3 27.3 $27,190
Italy 24.4 28.6 $24,670
Greece 24.3 28.4 $17,440
Norway 23.9 33.2 $29,620
Poland 23.0 N/A $9,450
United Kingdom 21.8 25.9 $24,160
Portugal 21.1 25.5 $18,150
Luxembourg 20.8 N/A $53,780
Czech Republic 20.1 N/A $14,720
Hungary 20.1 N/A $12,340
Iceland 19.8 23.2 $29,990
Spain 19.6 25.3 $20,150
New Zealand 18.5 25.8 $19,160
Australia 18.0 22.5 $25,370
Slovak Republic 17.9 N/A $11,960
Canada 17.8 23.1 $27,130
Japan 16.9 18.6 $25,130
United States 14.8 19.4 $36,000
Ireland 13.8 18.5 $32,410
Mexico 11.8 N/A $8,430
South Korea 6.1 11.0 $15,090

Figures from the OECD and the UNDP.


Patterns of expenditure and provision in the communist-ruled countries are still more difficult to assess accurately due to inadequacies in the available data. In these states, governments took full responsibility to provide for all welfare needs, often through the medium of business undertakings. The extent of state provision grew steadily in the Soviet Union from 1917 and in the states that came under communist control after World War II. All of them by the 1970s had sound provision of health care, education, and other essential services, including for child care, covering their entire populations. The communist countries also struggled to finance social provision from the 1970s, and the decay of their social and economic infrastructures was one reason for their collapse from 1989. Since 1989, former communist countries have followed the rest of Europe, often under pressure from international organizations on whom they depended for their reconstruction, in particular the World Bank, in seeking more selective targeting of state expenditure
and greater reliance on the market. To a greater extent than in Western Europe this appears, especially in the former Soviet Union, to have led to increased poverty and reduced access to services among those unable to participate in the labor market, such as older and disabled people.

Методы внедрения социальной политики

Во второй половине 20 века, многие государства кардинально изменили приоритетные сферы правительственного финансирования. Если в довоенный период основные капиталовложения делались в военную промышленность, то в послевоенное время основной финансовый поток был направлен на экономическое развитие и социальную поддержку населению.

Важной составляющей социальной политики было становление нормативно-правовой базы, которая обеспечивала реальное гражданское равенство и эффективное решение социально экономических конфликтов. Результатом этого стало принятие во многих странах первых либеральных конституций и трудовых кодексов

Финансирование социальной сферы происходило за счет местных и центральных органов государственной власти, которые распределяли финансовые потоки от крупных промышленных объектов. Львиную долю капитала составляли и налоги, которые выплачивались лицами, обладающими высокими доходами или недвижимостью.

Модель всеобщего благоденствия не исключает возможности вмешательства в социальную политику государства международных либо национальных благотворительных организаций.

Особое внимание в таких государствах уделяется социальной и экономической реабилитации представителям маргинальных слоев общества — таких людей переучивают новым специальностям и предоставляют им рабочие места

Государство всеобщего благоденствия: концепция

Теория «Государства всеобщего благоденствия» включала в себя принципы устранения несправедливости капиталистического строя. Ее можно назвать попыткой трансформировать капитализм в совершенно новый общественный строй, главной целью которого стало бы достижение социальной гармонии.

«Государство всеобщего благоденствия» якобы будет не допускать монополии и способствовать тому, чтобы наладить положение разных социальных слоев.

О теории говорят, как о тщательной скрытой форме защиты капитализма, только государственно-монополистического. В данном случае, именно буржуазное государство укрепляет свою экономику и еще больше эксплуатирует трудящихся.

Effects on poverty

Main article: Welfare’s effect on poverty

Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries, whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP. Most «welfare states» have considerably lower poverty rates than they had before the implementation of welfare programs.

Country Absolute poverty rate (1960–1991)
(threshold set at 40% of U.S. median household income)
Relative poverty rate


Pre-welfare Post-welfare Pre-welfare Post-welfare
Sweden 23.7 5.8 14.8 4.8
Norway 9.2 1.7 12.4 4.0
Netherlands 22.1 7.3 18.5 11.5
Finland 11.9 3.7 12.4 3.1
Denmark 26.4 5.9 17.4 4.8
Germany 15.2 4.3 9.7 5.1
Switzerland 12.5 3.8 10.9 9.1
Canada 22.5 6.5 17.1 11.9
France 36.1 9.8 21.8 6.1
Belgium 26.8 6.0 19.5 4.1
Australia 23.3 11.9 16.2 9.2
United Kingdom 16.8 8.7 16.4 8.2
United States 21.0 11.7 17.2 15.1
Italy 30.7 14.3 19.7 9.1


  • Arts, Wil and Gelissen John; «Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism or More? A State-of-the-art report»; Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 12 (2), pp. 137-158 (2002).
  • Esping-Andersen, Gosta; Politics against markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (1985).
  • Esping-Andersen, Gosta; «The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism», Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press (1990).
  • Korpi, Walter; «The Demcoratic Class Struggle»; London: Routledge (1983).
  • Stein Kuhnle 2000 Routledge ISBN 0-415-21291-X
  • Stephens, John D. «The Transition from Capitalism to SOcialism»; Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press (1979).
  • Van Kesbergen «Social Capitalism»; London: Routledge (1995).


Ashford, Douglas E. The Emergence of the Welfare States. Oxford, U.K., 1986.

Baldwin, Peter. The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State, 1875–1975. Cambridge, U.K., 1990.

Bock, Gisela, and Pat Thane, eds. Maternity and Gender Policies: Women and the Rise of the European Welfare States, 1880s–1950s. London, 1991.

Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge, U.K., 1990.

Flora, Peter, and Arnold J. Heidenheimer. The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. New Brunswick, N.J., 1987.

Harris, José. William Beveridge: A Biography. 2nd ed. Oxford, U.K., 1997.

Jütte, Robert. Poverty and Deviance in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, U.K., 1994.

Koven, Seth, and Sonya Michel, eds. Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States. London, 1993.

Palier, Bruno, ed. Comparing Social Welfare Systems in Southern Europe. Paris, 1997.

Pedersen, Susan. Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State: Britain and France, 1914–45. Oxford, U.K., 1993.

Ritter, Gerhard A. Social Welfare in Germany and Britain. Translated by Kim Traynor. Leamington Spa, U.K., 1986.

Quine, Maria Sophia. Population Politics in Twentieth Century Europe: Fascist Dictatorships and Liberal Democracies. London, 1996.

——. Italy’s Social Revolution: Charity and Welfare from Liberalism to Fascism. Basingstoke, U.K., 2002.

Thane, Pat. Foundations of the Welfare State. 2nd ed. London, 1996.


  1. Paul K. Edwards and Tony Elger, The global economy, national states and the regulation of labour (1999) p, 111
  2. «Welfare state.» Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Ed. Phillip Anthony O’Hara. Routledge, 1999. p. 1245
  3. S. B. Fay, ‘Bismarck’s Welfare State’, Current History, Vol. XVIII (January 1950), pp. 1-7.
  4. Munroe Smith’s text «Four German Jurists»
  5. E. P. Hennock, The Origin of the Welfare State in England and Germany, 1850–1914: Social Policies Compared (2007)
  6. Hermann Beck, Origins of the Authoritarian Welfare State in Prussia, 1815-1870 (1995)
  7. Elaine Glovka Spencer, «Rules of the Ruhr: Leadership and Authority in German Big Business Before 1914,» Business History Review, Spring 1979, Vol. 53 Issue 1, pp 40-64
  8. Ivo N. Lambi, «The Protectionist Interests of the German Iron and Steel Industry, 1873-1879,» Journal of Economic History, March 1962, Vol. 22 Issue 1, pp 59-70
  9. «welfare state.» O’Hara, Phillip Anthony (editor). Encyclopedia of political economy. Routledge 1999. p. 1245
  10. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1999). Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-874200-2.
  11. Pawel Zaleski Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector, Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr : «Civil Society in the Making», IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006
  12. Gosta Esping-Andersen. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  13. Bo Rothstein: Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State (Theories of Institutional Design), Cambridge 1998
  14. Emanuele Ferragina and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser (2011). Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures. Policy & Politics vol. 39 (4). p. 598.
  15. Emanuele Ferragina and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser (2011). Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures. Policy & Politics, vol. 39 (4). p. 584.
  16. Emanuele Ferragina and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser (2011). Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures. Policy & Politics, vol. 39 (4). p. 584.
  17. Emanuele Ferragina and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser (2011). Welfare regime debate: past, present, futures. Policy & Politics, vol. 39 (4). p. 597.
  18. ^ Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielson, F. & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68(3), 22-51.
  19. Atkinson, A. B. (1995). Incomes and the Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55796-8.
  20. Barr, N. (2004). Economics of the welfare state. New York: Oxford University Press (USA).


In the countries of southern Europe that were under authoritarian control from the 1930s through the 1970s (Spain, Portugal, Greece), health and welfare services were weakly developed before the 1970s, with such tasks left primarily to voluntary, mainly religious but also labor- and employer-run, institutions and to the family. The latter was believed to be more resilient than in northern Europe. In consequence, much of the responsibility for providing welfare fell upon unpaid women. Similar patterns were evident in Italy between the end of Fascist rule and the 1970s. Government plans for universalist social welfare in Italy were defeated after World War II, as after World War I, by a combination of industrialists, the Church, and the liberal professions.

In the mid-1990s, family benefits and services still cost only 0.8 percent of GDP in Portugal, 0.2 percent in Spain, 0.8 percent in Italy, and 0.1 percent in Greece, compared with a European Community average of 3.5 percent. Social insurance, targeted at key workers, was more prominent in these generally less developed state welfare systems. None of them developed effective national health care systems until the 1970s, when all four countries introduced universal systems on the model of the British National Health Service. They felt under pressure to conform to some degree to standards prevailing elsewhere in the European Union. Also, all had left of center governments at some point in the 1970s. Their economies were expanding and the larger numbers of urbanized, more affluent, men and women
demanded modern welfare provision. The outcomes were uneven, due not least to the international economic situation in the 1970s and to the existence of a large but not necessarily efficient private sector, which continued to thrive due to the inadequacies of the public sector and was encouraged, as elsewhere, by governments due to the economic situation and the international reaction against high levels of welfare spending. Health care expenditure as a proportion of GDP in Spain, Greece, and Portugal was among the lowest in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in the 1990s. Of the three, it was highest in Spain at 7 percent. Public housing and housing subsidies were also less developed in these countries than elsewhere in Western Europe.

The one country of northern Europe, which was similarly poor, largely rural, and Roman Catholic, with a similarly severely limited, nonuniversal welfare system, heavily dependent upon the contribution of the family, particularly women, and often punitive church-run institutions, was the Republic of Ireland. In Ireland also, a free and universal health care system was introduced for the first time in the 1970s. Thereafter, economic success, which owed much to membership in the European Union, led to steady improvement in most forms of welfare provision, though at the end of the century it still lagged behind much of northwest Europe.

See alsoBeveridge, William; Old Age; Public Health; Social Insurance.


The German term (Sozialstaat, «social state») has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs being developed by the German Sozialpolitiker—»Social Politicians»— and implemented through Bismarck’s conservative reforms.

Despite early attempts to use an equivalent phrase in English the term only entered common use when William Temple popularized it during the Second World War, contrasting wartime Britain’s welfare state with the «warfare state» of Nazi Germany.

The Italian term «Social state» (Stato sociale) has the same origin. The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet (literally; the folk home) and goes back to the 1936 compromise between the Union and big Corporate companies. It is a Mixed economy, built on strong unions and a strong system of Social security and universal health care. The term «Wohlfahrtsstaat», a direct translation from English, is used in Germany to describe Sweden. In Spanish and many other languages, an analogous term is used: estado del bienestar; translated literally: «state of well-being». In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: «Estado do bem-estar socal» which means «state of social well-being» and Estado de Providência which means «Providing State», as in the State should provide citizens their demands in order to achieve people’s well-being. In Brazil it is referred to as Previdencia Social, translated as social providence.

Характеристика государства всеобщего благосостояния в Аргентине

Пенсионный план

До правительства Перона (1946-55) уже было шесть видов пенсий, связанных с оккупацией. В 1944 году была введена пенсионная схема для коммерческих работников, а затем для промышленных рабочих в 1946 году..

Затем, во время правления Перона, практически каждый сотрудник был охвачен государственными пенсионными планами..

Однако, несмотря на резкое расширение этих планов, система, связанная с оккупацией, осталась неизменной. Кроме того, попытки интегрировать планы оказались безуспешными.

И хотя система охватывала все профессии, те, кто фактически получал пенсии, были в основном наемными работниками и работниками частных компаний. Различия в отношении других профессий были очень большими.

Медицинское страхование

С другой стороны, системы медицинского страхования были также созданы по профессиональным категориям. Но покрытие этой страховки не охватывало все профессиональные категории в то время.

Многие медицинские страховки обслуживались профсоюзами, и их развитие осуществлялось параллельно с развитием системы государственных больниц. Медицинские услуги в принципе бесплатны для всего населения.Работающие не по найму работники были фактически заблокированы от любого социального страхования кроме пенсий. Медицинская система в Аргентине постепенно стратифицируется.

Сотрудники формального сектора пользовались медицинским страхованием, а неформальный — государственными больницами. Со своей стороны, верхний средний класс использовал частные услуги, медицинские услуги и страхование.

Другие государственные политики социальной помощи традиционно проводились благотворительными организациями. С созданием Фонда Евы Перон государственная система расширилась.

Фонд приобрел общественный характер и оказал большое влияние на характер последующей политики социальной помощи.

The History of the Welfare State

Although fair treatment of citizens and a state-provided standard of living for the poor dates back further than the Roman Empire, the modern welfare states that best exemplify the historical rise and fall of this concept are the U.K. and the United States. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the welfare state in the U.K.—based on the Beveridge Report—took hold, leading to a growth in the government to replace the services that were once provided by charities, trade unions, and the church. In the U.S., the groundwork for the welfare state grew out of the Great Depression and the massive price paid by the poor and the working poor during this period.

The U.K.’s system grew despite some spirited opposition by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and it continues today although it frequently needs restructuring and adjustments to keep it from getting too unwieldily. The U.S. never went to the extent of the U.K., let alone somewhere like Germany or Denmark, and Ronald Reagan had much more success than Thatcher in shrinking government. Many people look at the differing economic growth rates of the U.S. and the U.K. throughout periods where the welfare state flourished and floundered to make conclusions on whether it is good or bad for a nation as a whole.