Developmental social policy: theory and implementation

Abstract

These categories were originally identified by Harold Wilensky and Charles Lebeaux, two American social policy scholars in 1965. Since then, their classification has been elaborated by other social policy scholars such as Gosta EspingAndersen (1990), Ramesh Mishra (1984) and Richard Titmuss (1974). Supporters of the residual social policy model favor limited state intervention, a high degree of personal responsibility, the involvement of nonprofit organizations in welfare, and the maximum use of market mechanisms to meet social needs (even in cases where those market mechanisms clearly fail, such as in health care where the demander is also the supplier, and the patients and the taxpayers, a third party, are picking up the check; see, for example, Aspalter et al., 2012; LeGrand et al., 1998). They believe that government’s role should be limited to providing a safety net for those who cannot help themselves and to helping that small proportion of the population that is not able to function effectively in the market. On the other hand, supporters of the institutional social policy model believe that government social policies should cover everybody and provide comprehensive universal benefits and social services for all. They favor extensive government intervention in both the economy and social affairs, and they believe in universal coverage, high income replacement rates, and the long-term provision of benefits. As will be realized, the institutional approach is usually associated with the Western European countries while the residual approach is more frequently associated with Anglo-Saxon countries, particularly the United States. Of course, this classification is based on the normative social policy preferences of the Western industrial countries and, in the 1980s, some social policy scholars began to argue that they did not fit the experience of the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Central and South America. Stewart MacPherson and James Midgley (1987) pointed out that the residual and institutional perspectives did not accurately describe the social policies of the governments of many developing countries which were seeking to promote economic development and seeking to integrate social policies with economic policies. In several subsequent publications, Midgley and his colleagues (Midgley, 1993, 1995; Midgley and Sherraden, 2000; Midgley and Tang, 2001) have sought to identify the developmental model of social policy or the social development perspective. Midgley often uses the term “social development” in his writings because this term is widely known and has the same meaning. The term was popularized by the United Nations in the 1950s to describe the way the governments of many developing countries linked social policies with their economic development activities. Over the years, social development programs have increased extensively and in many developing countries, governments and non-governmental organizations have introduced a large number of projects that fall under the heading of social development. However, Midgley (1996) believes that the developmental social policy approach should not to be limited only to the developing countries of the Global South; it also applies fully to the countries of the Industrial North. He argues that developmental social policy has to be adopted in the industrial countries as anew approach that can end the separation of social welfare and economic development, in the minds of the people, experts and governments alike. This chapter describes the developmental social policy perspective by briefly tracing its history, describing its key theoretical premises and showing how it can be applied in practice. The developmental social policy perspective differs from both the residual and institutional approaches because it promotes social welfare interventions that are to a large extent “productivist.” Developmental social policies contribute to development not only by way of productivist social policies or social policies of productivist character or productivist side-effects, but also it sees social policy as a key policy tool to improve input factors and determinants of economic growth, especially to create and sustain:1 a healthy and educated labor force (as well as current and future entrepreneurs);2 a healthy primary distribution of assets and savings; 3 a healthy redistribution of income mainly through taxation and universalhealth care and universal education; 4 increasing the size of the middle class; 5 increasing the number of prospective entrepreneurs and investors also in thelower classes of society (e.g., micro-investors and micro-entrepreneurs); 6 investment in the physical and natural environment that is conducive to highstandards and quality of living for all people; 7 investment in positive education and communication (including socialpolicy marketing); and last, but not least, 8 investment in individual human, social and cultural capabilities, particularlythe economic, social and cultural activation of minorities, the unemployed or underemployed, the elderly, people with vulnerabilities and disabilities, people in adverse life-time situations, etc. (see Aspalter, 2010).