| Abstract: | In writing the overture to an issue on contribution financed social security one cannot but speak of Bismarck; it must also address Beveridge who saw contributions, although in their design and role clearly differently from Bismarck, as one core revenue tool to finance his vision. Beveridge attributed to the private financial sector a prominent role in securing people against the negative effects on income of shocks and crises, while Bismarck did not. Beveridge's concept, when first published, had, and still has today, the most attractive charm of rigorously satisfying peoples' striving for equitable and inclusive societal solutions. Bismarck's concept intrinsically offers income security only to those who contribute, while the level of protection depends on the level of contributions paid (with the exception of health insurance). In reality, both concepts, where implemented, had to face the realities of socio‐economic and political developments: Beveridge's vision was achieved in respect of access to health services where his proposal, in its predominantly tax‐financed version, has since turned into a worldwide blueprint for health schemes; in its other components, it was not resilient enough to achieve the intended standards and now is replete with means‐tested (poor relief) elements. Bismarck's scheme has proven its potential to achieve “universality”, not necessarily by theoretical design but as a matter of fact, i.e. covering people from cradle to grave (like Beveridgean schemes). With globalization, schemes of both origins have had to face massive neoliberal attacks over the last three decades. Which of the approaches is best able to survive must be left an open question: in the current worldwide context of rapid change, both have weak and strong points, and whether a symbiosis of the two offers the answer to future challenges remains to be seen. |
