社会福利服务供给中中央政府和地方政府之间的关系:韩国的经验

文章以在韩国社会福利服务扩大及发展过程中的国家作用为中心,分析中央政府和地方政府在社会福利服务供给中发挥的作用,阐释中央和地方政府在社会福利服务作用中的争议焦点和政策课题.     

深化改革 推动社会福利社会化

近年来,我国社会福利事业取得了长足的发展,初步建立起了不同类型、不同层次、不同内容的社会福利服务体系,逐步改变过去单纯依靠政府财政投资、完全由国家包办包管的状态,出现了政府主导、部门配合、社会参与的发展局面。但是,社会福利社会化的探索和实践还仅仅是初步的、局部的,尚未从根本上改革政府包揽的体制。因此,要明确思路,转变观念,深化改革,加快推进社会福利社会化。     

适度普惠视阈下我国儿童社会福利体系构建及其实施路径

民政部提出社会福利由"补缺型"向"适度普惠型"转变的战略决策,为我国社会福利发展趋向奠定了政治基础。此后,适度普惠社会福利成为国家和学界共同关心和关注的重要议题,也逐渐成为我国当前和接下来一段时期内的主导社会福利模式。在这种背景下,回顾和评价我国儿童社会福利发展取得的成效和存在的不足,从福利对象、原则、理念、内容、政策体系、以及责任主体等六个方面建构我国适度普惠儿童社会福利体系,并进一步提出其实施路径,具有重要的战略意义和现实意义。     

韩国社会福利服务政策现状与课题

文章通过阐述韩国社会福利服务政策的现状和存在的问题,揭示今后发展的方向.     

广东省阳江市江城区：着力加强农村敬老院管理

在民政部领导关怀和部有关司局的大力支持下，中国社会福利协会于2009年11月经国务院正式批准成立。它以改善民生和扶老、助残、救孤、济困为根本宗旨，促进社会福利法治化、专业化、标准化和社会化，汇集社会力量推进社会福利事业发展。主要业务范围为：贯彻落实国家有关社会福利的方针、政策和法律、法规，配合政府相关部门做好相应工作，推动社会福利事业有序发展：开展社会福利理论研究，     

用科学发展观统筹区域性社会福利事业协调发展

党委政府高度重视和大力支持社会福利工作 随着经济社会的不断发展,淮安市各级党委政府在不断完善社会救助制度的同时,注意把社会福利事业发展摆上重要议事日程.一是初步建立了社会福利工作运行机制.淮安市成立了由分管市长任组长,相关职能部门为成员的社会福利工作领导小组,并在民政部门设立了办公室,基本形成了党委领导、政府负责、民政牵头、部门协作、社会参与的运行机制.     

商丘市老年社会福利事业的调研和建议

老年社会福利是社会福利体系中的重要组成部分,本文选择了河南豫东地区为样本,对该地区老年社会福利事业的发展现状进行调研,并提出建议,以期为有关部门制订相关政策提供参考。     

香港安老服务经验及其启示

今天的香港已经形成了"官民合作,官款民营,民间福利组织与社会福利一体化"的社会福利制度格局。在宏观政策和管理层面上,香港的社会福利制度有以下一些特点: 政府在社会福利方面承担着重要责任。主要体现在政策和服务规划的制定、提供所需经     

中国式现代化与新时代社会福利制度的转型升级

“中国式现代化”是党的二十大报告中提出的全面推进中华民族伟大复兴的方向指针,是实现我国未来社会福利制度转型升级的不竭动力。中国式现代化“五位一体”的概念内涵为我国社会福利制度的长期发展赋予了“本土性”“方向性”“引领性”“适度性”“共享性”五方面的时代要求,为我国在借鉴已有现代化国家普遍经验的基础上实现基于国情国力的道路选择奠定了坚实基础。实践中,我国遵循“小福利”特征的社会福利制度不但是特定时代的合理产物,也带有典型的历史局限性,其突出问题表现为既有制度所造成的“家庭照顾赤字”。在未来转型升级过程中,我国社会福利制度应当紧密结合中国式现代化的战略部署,以夯实家庭照顾能力为目标、以稳定公共部门福利供应为抓手、以优化社会保障内部结构为基础、以增强基层民政服务能力为重点、以构建自主知识体系为支撑,多措并举推进中国社会福利事业的完善。     

社会福利制度创新中的政府责任与社会组织责任——第四届社会福利论坛综述

责任结构是社会福利制度发展中的核心议题。为了科学界定政府、社会组织、家庭、社区等多元主体间的社会福利责任,推进社会福利创新,更好地满足社会成员的社会福利需要,由中国社会福利研究专业委员会主办的"社会福利制度创新:政府责任与社会组织责任"论坛于2012年7月15日在宁夏回族自治区银川市胜利召开。论坛由中国社     

Does family still matter? Public and private transfers in emerging welfare state systems in a comparative perspective

Kim JW, Choi YJ. Does family still matter? Public and private transfers in emerging welfare state systems in a comparative perspective Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 353–366 © 2010 The Author(s), International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare. While the role of the family has been a distinctive feature of East Asian welfare systems, rapid social policy development and reforms in South Korea and Taiwan over the last two decades have led to an increase in public welfare. Yet, despite a growing number of studies, little is known about the role of family support – private transfers – and public programmes in the performance of state welfare. This article reports on a comparative analysis of the role of public and private transfers aimed at poverty and inequality reduction in 12 Western and two East Asian states employing the Luxemburg Income Study data set. Results indicate that, in contrast to the West, private transfers that rest primarily on family support remain more important than public transfers in reducing income inequality and poverty in South Korea and Taiwan.     

Changing Welfare Regimes in East and Southeast Asia: Crisis, Change and Challenge

The Asia‐Pacific region is a latecomer to the development of the welfare state. However, in some countries, governments have implemented ambitious programmes to extend social security systems and to enlarge the institutional structure of their welfare states. Comparative study of the welfare systems in East and Southeast Asia is, however, underdeveloped and there still is a relative lack of accurate knowledge about welfare systems in the region. Since the Asian financial crisis, more attention has been paid to the social policies of the countries. This paper examines features of welfare regimes in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, and undertakes a systematic review of the development, levels and patterns of welfare regimes in the region. Two core questions are answered: can the existing welfare systems help mitigate the social impact of the financial and economic crisis? What are the needs, challenges and developmental perspectives that inform the future of welfare regimes in this region?     

Is Sweden Being Torn Apart? Privatization and Old and New Patterns of Welfare State Support

This article examines the potential impact of institutional change on popular welfare support. The encompassing welfare state of Sweden provides an interesting case where the privatization of social service delivery has been widespread over the last decades. We use survey data from five rounds of the Swedish Welfare State Survey (1992, 1997, 2002, 2006 and 2010) in order to study how public preferences for the financing and organization of welfare services have changed over time. Based on a theory describing an ideal‐typical pattern of public support for an encompassing welfare model, we derive three types of public preferences: support for a pure state model, a pure market model and a mixed model (welfare services are funded by taxes but provided by private firms). We begin by tracking the development of these ideal‐typical attitude patterns between 1992 and 2010. We then investigate how preference patterns vary across municipalities displaying different degrees of privatization of social service delivery. Our results show that welfare support among Swedes over the last decades is better characterized as dynamic rather than stable. Swedes seem to take an overall more ideologically based position on the role of the welfare state over time. The share of respondents expressing such ideologically based preferences has increased from 54 per cent in 1992 to 78 per cent in 2010. This change is principally manifested in increased support for the state and mixed models. This trend seems to be parallel to the increasing share of private welfare service providers over the last decade. We also find a link between the municipal degree of privatization and support for our three ideal‐typical welfare models. Public support for a mixed welfare model and, to some extent, a market model, is comparatively stronger in municipalities where welfare services to a large extent are carried out by private actors. Conversely, data shows that public support for the traditional Swedish state model is more widespread in municipalities having a low degree of welfare services privatization. Lastly, we discuss some theoretical implications of our findings.     

Public Opinion against Markets? Attitudes towards Market Distribution of Social Services – A Comparison of 17 Countries

This article studies how citizens view the appropriateness of market criteria for allocating services commonly associated with social citizenship rights and welfare state responsibility. The article focuses specifically on a potential role for the market in the provision of social services. The relationship between welfare policy institutions, socio‐economic class and attitudes is explored by comparing attitudes across 17 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development, using multilevel modelling and data from the 2009 International Social Survey Programme. Results show that public support for market distribution of services is relatively weak in most countries, a result suggesting that public opinion is unlikely to pose a driving force within ongoing processes of welfare marketization. Still, attitudes are found to vary a lot across countries in tandem with between‐country variation in welfare policy design. First, aggregate public support for market distribution of services is stronger in countries with more private spending on services. Second, class differences in attitudes are larger in countries with more extensive state‐led delivery of services. Together, these results point to the operation of normative feedback‐effects flowing from existing welfare policy arrangements. The theoretical arguments and the empirical results presented in this article suggest that future research exploring the relationship between welfare policy and public opinion from a country‐comparative perspective is well advised to place greater focus on the market institutions that, to varying extents in different countries, act as complements to the state in the administration of social welfare.     

The Role of Distributional Coalitions in Welfare Regimes: Chile, Costa Rica and El Salvador

Do social policies in Latin America promote or discourage distribution? And if they do promote distribution, are coalitions a prerequisite? Drawing from a typology of welfare regimes elaborated for 18 Latin American countries, this article explores responses to these questions by addressing three emblematic cases: Chile, Costa Rica and El Salvador – that is, countries where the management of social risks primarily revolves around markets, states and families, respectively. Although the article is exploratory, findings suggest that societal coalitions have been, and are likely to continue to be, weak in market welfare regimes, strong in state welfare regimes and contingent to policy sectors in familialistic welfare regimes.     

社会工作视角下的生态福利社会化

社会福利是与民生、与社会工作密切相关的领域,生态福利作为社会福利的新的组成部分,更加强调作为个体的人与生态环境的互动。生态福利更强调社会应该为人类生存与发展所提供的好的生存环境以及物质福利与精神福利的双重促进。运用社会工作助人自助的理念和社会工作专业方法可以很好的将生态福利的服务推广和运用到生活中。生态福利社会化概念的提出,有利于扩大社会福利的内涵,唤醒公众关注社会福利的意识,促进社会全面发展。本文将从生态福利社会化的定义、社会工作与生态福利的关系、社会工作方法在生态福利社会化中的具体应用以及社会工作者在其中的角色等方面,对社会工作视角下的生态福利社会化进行探析。认为社会工作方法的应用有助于推进生态福利社会化,促进社会和个人良性互动、协调发展。     

Exploring Neglected Dimensions of Social Policy: The SDW, Fiscal Welfare and the Exemplar of Local Taxation in England

Titmuss's Social Division of Welfare (SDW) thesis is a vitally important but much neglected element of social policy analysis. This article seeks to explore the SDW, with a particular focus on fiscal welfare. Fiscal welfare has been described as forming a hidden welfare state, and while taxation is one of the main ways in which governments affect the lives of citizens, studies of welfare pay remarkably little attention to its impact. Fiscal welfare is examined by using, as an exemplar, local taxation in England, a subject that itself is neglected within social policy. Local taxation in England is of interest because it illustrates the impact of a system of taxation on different groups of citizens, and how this can operate to the benefit of rich over poor citizens. This is because the current system is highly regressive, meaning that those on low and middle incomes spend proportionately more of their income paying the tax than do those on high incomes. What is of further interest is how within the debate about reform of local taxation, concern with regressivity becomes obscured and ceases to be the focus of attention. We are thus provided with an example of how fiscal welfare remains a hidden issue. The article concludes by arguing that social policy analysis needs to move beyond the narrow confines of social welfare and develop a broader understanding of welfare, based on the SDW.     

The Choice Revolution: Privatization of Swedish Welfare Services in the 1990s

During the 1990s, the Swedish welfare state was declared by some to be in a “crisis”, due to both financial strain and loss of political support. Others have argued that the spending cuts and reforms undertaken during this period did slow down the previous increase in social spending, but left the system basically intact. The main argument put forward in this article is that the Swedish welfare state has been and is still undergoing a transforming process whereby it risks losing one of its main characteristics, namely the belief in and institutional support for social egalitarianism. During the 1990s, the public welfare service sector opened up to competing private actors. As a result, the share of private provision grew, both within the health‐care and primary education systems as well as within social service provision. This resulted in a socially segregating dynamic, prompted by the introduction of “consumer choice”. As will be shown in the article, the gradual privatization and market‐orientation of the welfare services undermine previous Swedish notions of a “people's home”, where uniform, high‐quality services are provided by the state to all citizens, regardless of income, social background or cultural orientation.