Q2 (i) Ans: Welfare regimes refer to the different ways in which countries or jurisdictions organize economic production and

nd transfers within the context of a capitalist market economy. Regimes are characterized by sets of collective values, aims, institutions and policies that are combined in integrative and distinctive ways and that shape political responses to change. The theory is that countries adopting the same regime are in many respects of substance more similar to each other than to countries or jurisdictions following different regimes. Liberal welfare regimes/ Liberal Market Economies (USA) Liberal regimes are individualistic, giving pride of place to the concept of liberty, often defined as freedom from interference by other human agents, notably the state. Liberal economic ideals value highly the role of the free market and only reluctantly sanction regulation to reduce market imperfections. It follows that resource allocation is largely left to the market not least because liberal economic theory suggests that this generally rewards individuals in terms of their marginal contribution to social welfare. Where individuals fail to thrive economically because of market imperfections, these are likely to be tackled at source, for example through macroeconomic policies to enhance labour demand. If people are unwilling to make an economic contribution this is treated as a matter of choice, but alternative provision is only made available when individuals are genuinely unable to contribute for reasons beyond their control. Wherever possible, collective welfare is provided through the market and where not, the residual provision is limited to a few approved risks, tightly regulated and targeted so as to exclude undeserving claims and to prevent unduereliance on state funds. Priority is given to measures that offer relief from poverty rather than maintain incomes, foster social solidarity or promote equality. Social democratic welfare regimes/ Industry Coordinated Economies (Scandinavian Countires: Sweden) Historically and ideologically, social democratic regimes were born out of opposition to liberal policies and prioritize the concept of equality above that of freedom. In its purist form, the objective is to seek and exploit political equality in order to achieve economic and social equality in the form of a classless society. More pragmatically, goals of equality may be expressed in terms of social citizenship the ability to fully participate or reduced to the concept of equal opportunity rather than equality of outcome. A central tenet of social democratic regimes is that equality, however defined, cannot be achieved with an unfettered market and that the role of the state, in regulating the market and promoting social welfare, is paramount. Social democratic mechanisms for attaining these goals are the maintenance of full employment, universalistic provision and the marginalization of assistance based on the assessment of

financial need. The state seeks to guarantee that men and women are able and motivated to work, willingly providing employment within the public sector and childcare to help attain desired outcomes. Welfare provision is generous, comprehensive in the risks covered, universal and uniform with flat-rate benefits. Private provision, on the other hand, is actively discouraged with services that elsewhere are bought and sold in the market place being decommodified that is, allocated and often delivered by the state rather than the market. As an intention and a result, receipt of a public service or benefit becomes both a right and a badge of citizenship, a statement of equal worth and solidarity. Redistribution of income from richer individuals to the less well off is achieved through the tax system (the redistributive potential of the benefit system is weakened by universal fl at-rate provision) and a virtual circle is created in which high public expenditure and employment can be sustained by high taxes progressively levied on a large labour force. Characterizing welfare regimes Liberal Role of Family Market State solidarity Dominant locus of solidarity Degree of decommodification Characterization Market Minimal Residual State Maximum Universalist Marginal Central Marginal Social democratic Marginal Marginal Central Universal

Welfare state: Dominant mode of Individual

(ii) Ans: * The first generation of welfare state studies typically turned to theories of industrialism to account for the common trajectory of rising welfare state expenditures throughout the developed world. Industrialization creates new demands for public spending as systems of social support based on kinship and the patrimonial traditions of agrarian societies are eroded. Growing dependence on wage labor creates new vulnerabilities among those with little or no labor to sell, such as the old, the sick, and the young. The result, as Clark Kerr and colleagues (1960, pp. 22, 152) observe, is a new and expanded role for the state to maintain the labor force and achieve coordination and consensus in a complex, urban society. The root cause of the welfare state, Wilensky concluded, was economic growth mediated by demographic change, which resulted in rising life expectancy and population aging. Functionalist theories The functionalist study of industrialization in the United States suggests that the modern welfare state emerged as a result of the shift from an agrarian to an industrial society. From the industrial society perspective, three conditions- social, fiscal, and political - fueled the rise of the welfare state. According to this view, industrialization fundamentally altered the social structure of society by reshaping the labour force, with the by-products of industrial societymass migration, emigration, urbanization, and unemployment - dramatically affecting patterns of daily life. The wealth generated by industrialization increased the financial ability of the state to provide systematic assistance. Finally, the creation of political institutions capable of transforming constituency needs into political agendas is viewed as a functional response of industrialization. A second variant of the functionalist explanation is developed in the work of T.H. Marshall (1964). In Class, Citizenship, and Social Development Marshall analyses the British experience, and concludes that the changing social structure-as opposed to industrialization-led to the emergence of the welfare state. During the eighteenth century civil rights became universal, the nineteenth century witnessed the growth of political rights, and the twentieth century gave birth to the conception of social rights. From this perspective, political developments initiated recognition of citizenship rights, which led to the development of the welfare state. New strutures emerged to perform functions previously rendered by families and extended familial networks, and the characterization of social assistance flowing from social rights attempted to eliminate the derogatory remnants of the Elizabethan Poor Laws (which did not advance social rights as demonstrated by their punitive nature). A third functionalist interpretation is in the realm of modernization presented by Smelser (1 964)

and Flora (1 974). This perspective views industrialization as part of a larger movement towards modernization, which resulted in the inability of individuals and groups to perform self-help related functions. Thus, the impetus of state interventionism was not due to the occurrence of industrialization or recognition of social rights alone, but as a result of necessity created by weakened social structures and increasing social instability brought about by the technological advancements of industrialization. organization in modern society. ** Marxist accounts emphasized changing relations of production (the logic of capitalism). Welfare state expansion, James O'Connor (1973) argued, was driven by the dual, if contradictory, imperatives imposed on the capitalist state to create conditions for capital accumulation, on the one hand, and the social legitimation of this mode of production, on the other. Socio-political theories Political and structural-political interpretations of welfare state evolution identify social and political factors as the catalyst for welfare development. From the traditional Marxist view, the modern welfare state is a result of the transition from a feudal to a capitalist society, and without class-conflict, social benefits provided by the government would not have been established. The traditional Marxist rendition of state development views competition between groups as stimulating welfare state development, with concessions from the political elite as the incentive for social provisions. For example, Offe (1 974) contends that welfare state programs merely serve to promote the interests of capital and cites Bismarks introduction of social insurance as proof of this claim. By contrast, George and Wilding (1976) claim that most Marxists do not adopt the Machiavellian view of the welfare state, but see social legislation as meted out by the ruling classes as a result of working class pressures. Refining an earlier thesis, Offe (1984) suggests that the welfare state is responsive to pressures created by both a capitalist economy and those generated by organized labour. Similarly, the social democratic perspective of Esping-Andersen (1985), Korpi (1983) and Shalev (1983) emphasize class structure and conflict as critical in welfare state formation. The class-struggle or power-resources model developed by the social democrats suggests that governments introduced social benefits as a result of unions ability to mobilize their workingclass constituents. However, Williamson and Pampel (1997) differentiate the social democratic from neo-Marxist analysis represented by the work of OConnor (1973) and Offe (1972). The modernization thesis assumes that institutional specialization is the functionalist result of the break-down of traditional forms of social

Where the social-democrats view the rise of the welfare state as a victory for labour, the neoMarxists see social spending as a mechanism of control over labour. *** The globalization thesis was developed by Leibfried (1995) among others, to depict the growing interdependency of Europe as a result of the move towards an economically and politically united Europe. Leibfried proposed that globalization has resulted in interdependency amongst industrialized countries, which precludes total retrenchment of any states government from social provision. Leibfried suggests that the shape and structure of the welfare state is imposed upon countries, rather than i t being a natural evolution of the industrialized society. The concept of globalization can be expanded to include exogenous factors such as increased economic inter-dependency of the world economic markets, the mobility of labour, the ratification of trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT, mega-trends, media, and other forces which influence the shape of social welfare policy. Ferge (1996) argues that the welfare state paradigm is shifting from an old to a new or postmodern model which undermines solidarity between generations, highly values individual freedom and decision-making, and perpetuates inequalities. Rather than migration from rural to urban settings, the post-modern welfare state encourages global migration of both industry and individuals. Global trade has increased competition between employers and nations, resulting in the desire to maintain low-level labour costs (including employee benefits). Post-modern point of view, countries once ideologically far apart are seen as moving in similar directions: shrinking entitlements in response to fiscal pressure and increasing privatization or reliance on markets for distribution or delivery of services.

(iii)

Ans:

Although the words "Welfare State" are not specifically mentioned into the Constitution, the aims and objectives clearly point to such an entity. Moreover, what is not specifically stated in the Preamble is mentioned in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 38 of the Chapter defining these Directives runs as follows : "The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing arid protecting, as affectively as it may, a social order in which justice, social economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of national life. The Directive Principles Jays down aims and objects which unmistakably indicate the broad policy the Government of India (and the Slate Government) arc expected to follow and all these are designed to lay the right foundation for a Welfare State. The Directive Principles of State Policy in the constitution of India are perhaps the most exhaustive in the constitution of any democratic country outside the communist bloc. Every possible effort has been made to include all available means to ensure social and economic justice which broadly speaking, long the basic foundations of a Welfare State. These cover adequate means of livelihood, ownership and control of the means of production, the health and general well-being of all sections of the people, especially, the young, the old and women the relatively weaker sections of society. These groups generally need special protective measures in almost every set-up. The Directives also seek to eliminate, as far as possible, the exploitation of people by others and lay down the universal principle disapproving of the concentration of wealth and of the means of productions, covering, by implication, both the agricultural and the industrial spheres. The Directives go even further. They provide for just and humane conditions or work and maternity relief, for free and compulsory education of children, promotion of educational economic interests of the backward and weaker sections of society, raising of 'the level of nutrition and the standard of living and organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. These aims are specified in Articles 42,45, 47 and 48. Two broad streams have characterized Indian welfare approach. The first, where the focus is on redistribution of end products, like jobs and housing, and the second, which relates to intermediate inputs like education, and specially targeted schemes such as credit directed to particular social groups with the intention to equip them to participate more effectively in a market economy.

The key instrument used to a much broader extent than almost any other country is affirmative action, which are set-asides (or reservations as they are commonly referred to in India) in education, jobs and political representation for historically marginalized sections of society. The Constitution had provided these guarantees for Indias indigenous peoples (referred to as Scheduled Tribes or STs) and the social group at the bottom of Indias caste hierarchy (the Dalits referred to as Scheduled Castes or SCs). Over time other social groups began clamouring for similar status, arguing that their backward status required special dispensation by the state. In turn this has fuelled the rise of identity politics in India. The result has been considerable success in giving political representation to a wide range of social groups. However, this has come at a high price. The success in providing symbolic goods and group benefits has intensified identity politics and militated against broad programmatic efforts. As a result outcomes in terms of improvements in socio-economic conditions have been weak, with the political leadership reaping most of the benefits. Another major thrust of social policy schemes has been to provide food security with the additional intent of increasing agricultural output. In this case however, the focus is on guaranteeing a minimum support price (MSP) for particular agricultural products, especially grains (wheat and rice), purchasing, storing and transporting the foodgrains by a government

intermediary and then releasing a part of it at subsidized rates to families below the poverty line (BPL) through the public distribution system (PDS). The largest permanent GOI welfare scheme is the targeted public distribution system (TPDS), which aims at providing subsidised food to mainly poor households.The two main aims of the TPDS are to alleviate poverty and malnutrition among poor households. The food subsidy is the most expensive of the government schemes, costing the government about Rs. 250 billion (approximately $6 billion) in 2003-04 (more than half of all explicit subsidies of the central government). The other large item in this set, targeted to the same group, is the fertilizer subsidy, which tries to moderate the price of fertilizers to the farmer. A second set of policies has focused on augmenting incomes of the rural poor through a variety of job creation programs. The largest and most vulnerable group in India is rural landless labour. Lacking assets, it has little bargaining power and is particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of agricultural output. Over the years large resources administrative, financial and intellectual have been deployed on employment programs through public works. While these vary in the nature of payment, type of work, number of days of work, etc it must be emphasized that the really poor in India do not have the option of remaining unemployed and therefore these public works schemes can benefit only to the extent the wages paid to these workers on the public works projects are higher than what they could earn elsewhere and the knock-on effects of

increasing wages in the non-public works labour market as a result of the general increase in demand for labour. A third set of policies has focused on augmenting incomes through asset redistribution. Although land reform has been on the agenda since independence, there has been only limited land redistribution. In general legislation aimed at land ceilings and land consolidation has had little impact on poverty while legislation targeting tenancy reform and abolition of intermediaries has had a more positive impact by improving tenants claims on the returns from land. The limited scope of land reforms has led the Indian state to try other measures to augment incomes through asset redistribution. To this end a flagship antipoverty program was created in the 1970s, called the Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP). This program has been recreated in different forms since then, including schemes to make entrepreneurs of the poor through schemes such as TRYSEM (Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment), which provide training and a toolkit, and most recently as a self-employment scheme (the Swarnajayanti Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), which was restructured into the National Rural Livelihoods Mission in 2010. The basic idea in these programs is to transfer a productive asset to the target population. However, they have chronically underestimated the barriers facing the poor in participating in the market place, managing an enterprise, or the costs of insuring the very asset

(e.g. milk cattle) supposed to provide a livelihood Real spending in the social sector as a percentage of GDP has decreased for the last five years. There has been no increase in per capita investment in the social sector. The economic insecurity of this class of people seems to be contributing to the growing social paranoia and the emergence of reactionary politics in the country. Growing fundamentalism and social tension is clearly linked to growing inequality and marginalization of a large section of urban population in the liberalized market. The result has been a steady increase of human rights violations, corruption and other criminal activities, social and religious intolerance, and instances of communal violence. After a decade, liberalization has betrayed the promises of poverty alleviation and social development and created only delusions of development. The government, instead of promoting and guaranteeing human rights, social justice and peoples welfare, has abdicated and withdrawn from its responsibilities. The ten years of reform facilitated the withering away of the welfare state and left the vast majority of Indians without social and economic leverage. Sustainable social development is still a dream for most Indians. The keynote of the concept of the Indian welfare state consists, precisely, in its individualistic ethics blended with the welfare functionalism and free competitive economy. Indian welfare has the characteristics of the liberal market economies in its welfare policies. Its policies are targeted approached and universality has been an absece in many of the welfare programmes in india. Its targetd polpulation for instaces are like the rural poor, the aged old, women, sc/st, children, and so on. However, with the multiplicity of welfare programes India welfare can not be stricly define as the welfare regimes as of the liberal market economies. Its appraches in welfare are not rooted in individuals but can be seenas rooted in communities gouping system.