Review: Vladimir Rys, Reinventing Social Security Worldwide

Vladimir Rys, Reinventing Social Security Worldwide, Policy Press, 2010, x + 126 pp, hbk 1 847 42643, £60, pbk 1 847 426406, £19.99

This book is the fruit of a lifetime of academic research and administrative experience in international social security policy. Rys worked for thirty years for the International Social Security Association (ISSA) and for half of that time as its General Secretary, and there can be few people with such a broad geographical and historical overview of the evolution of social security (here understood as financial benefits and also state insurance-funded health provision) and of the challenges facing it.

The first part of the book offers an international history of social security, a discussion of the economic and ideological context of the current debate, and some current trends:

‘… a series of shifts in emphasis on different elements in the existing structures and different roles assigned to specific actors. Thus, the state, while reducing its direct involvement in running social security schemes and providing social welfare benefits, is at the same time greatly increasing its powers when it comes to regulating occupational or private arrangements. Simultaneously, … there is an obvious shift of responsibility back to employers and different forms of occupational welfare, back to families and their supporting role, and also back to the individual and their personal capacity to save for rainy days’ (p.55)

The second part of the book builds on Rys’s previous publications on the sociological study of social security policy, and in particular discusses the ISSA’s contribution to the development of a method which goes ‘beyond the descriptive accounts of the institution as contained in legislative texts and [explains] why it is organised the way it is and why it functions the way it does’ (p.77). Such a method contributes to policy debate by suggesting which proposals might be feasible and which not. The different components of the method are discussed: the demographic, the economic, the sociological, and the political, the study of ideas, ideologies, laws, institutions and administrative techniques, and the study of the ways in which ideas are disseminated. The method is then applied to a variety of contexts, and particularly to eastern Europe ( – Rys is Czech).

The third section of the book is entitled ‘Reinventing social security in time of economic crisis: foundations of a new political consensus’ and argues for transparency about expenditures and present and future benefit levels and that only a renewed emphasis on social insurance can halt the privatisation of social security:

‘The principle of social insurance appeals partly to the rational self-interest of the individual, assuring them of access to benefits not normally attainable through private means, but also partly to their natural sentiment of solidarity and respect for other human beings’ (p.116)

As Rys suggests in his introduction, ‘it would be irresponsible, in the light of recent experience, to entrust [social insurance] to private arrangements’ (p.2).

Whilst rather too much of this book is of the ‘We did this at the ISSA’ variety, there is plenty of useful material here, and, above all, a sustained and rational argument for the importance of social insurance. However, Rys’s own career investment in the development of today’s systems leads him to neglect developments in which he has been rather less involved. It simply isn’t true that ‘no new social protection mechanism has been invented to deal with new risks and socially precarious situations’ (p.1). ‘Basic income’, ‘citizen’s income’ and ‘Child Benefit’ don’t appear in the index, and neither do ‘universal’ or ‘universalism’. Recent experience in Namibia suggests that universal provision might be precisely the new mechanism which the current crisis needs.

GERMANY: Commission to study citizen's income

Four years ago the former Governor of the Free State of Thuringia, Christian-Democrat Dieter Althaus, proposed his concept of Solidarisches Bürgergeld (solidary citizen’s income). The concept is based on an individual and unconditional basic income of EUR 600 per month for every citizen aged 14 or more (and EUR 300 per child paid to the parents), coupled with a basic health insurance voucher of EUR 200 per person, and funded by an income tax of 50% from the first Euro earned (but falling to 25% for higher income slices). This citizen’s income would be administered under the form of a negative income tax. Althaus has set up a commission to evaluate the solidarity citizen’s income:
https://www.insa-online.de/aktuelles/aktuelles.php

NAMIBIA: Labor union’s withdrawal from BIG Coalition sparks outpouring of defense for the BIG proposal

The National Union for Namibian Workers (NUNW) announced in early July that it would withdraw from the Basic Income Grant Coalition. The Union’s Secretary General said that NUNW did not see income distribution, as per the BIG model, as a viable way to address poverty in the country. Many editorials followed with renewed support for BIG. For example, the Windhoek Observer, a Namibian Weekly, devoted a recent editorial to the current BIG debate in Namibia. It compares President Pohamba’s remarks that BIG would encourage laziness to the famous apocryphal saying of the French Queen Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat cake.” Evidence from the recent BIG pilot project in Namibia is consistent with the contrary hypothesis that in places with deep poverty, cash grants stimulate people to work more by relieving them from the immediate needs that often keep them from engaging in productive activity.

Links to recent articles about BIG in Namibia are below.

“NUNW withdraws from BIG Coalition,” Richard Swartbooi, Namibian Broadcasting Company:
https://www.nbc.com.na/article.php?id=2404

“Let them Eat Cake,” Editorial, The Windhoek Observer:
https://basisinkomen.nl/wp/buitenlands-nieuws/president-namibia-laat-ze-maar-cake-eten/

“The NUNW and the Basic Income Grant,” Herbert Jauch, the Namibian:
https://www.namibian.com.na/news/full-story/archive/2010/july/article/labour-in-crisis-the-nunw-and-the-basic-income-grant/

“BIG: Time to separate fact from fiction,” by Lucy Edwards, May 28, New Era Online, 2010:
https://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=11177

“Namibia: Social justice and solidarity – think ‘BIG,’” Henning Melber, Pambazuka News, Issue 485, June 10, 2010:
https://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/65081

“Academic justifies BIG,” Irene !Hoaës, New Era Online, June 4, 2010:
https://www.newera.com.na/article.php?articleid=11293

IRELAND: A new political party supports BIG

The Irish Liberal Party is a small, new political party in the Republic of Ireland. According to the party’s website. “The party stands for the principles of individual freedom, respect for human rights, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, free and fair elections and multiparty-democracy, social justice, tolerance, free market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.” Also according to the party’s website, “Our most important policies are our Social Justice policies of basic income for all and the introduction of the Land Valuation Tax.” The website’s elaboration of its basic income provision uses BIEN’s definition of basic income and includes a link to the BIEN website.

The party’s website is: irishliberalparty.org

The party’s endorsement of BIG is at the following page: https://irishliberalparty.org/page_1277298297057.html