Graffiti existencial

Having observed patterns of debate and policy response to common political and economic pressures, it is necessary to reflect on how the variety of social assistance arrangements currently in operation across the OECD area can be evaluated on a comparative basis. We do not attempt a full-scale evaluation here. This was not within our original remit and could not be carried out within the time and resources available. Nevertheless, some discussion is appropriate of the criteria according to which national assistance programmes might be evaluated. There appear to be three main options.

First, we might specify and use the actual objectives which inform the operation of individual social assistance schemes in each country. There would be merit and logic in comparing performance to policy objectives in this way, but it would reveal very little. in so far as policy objectives are framed at all for social assistance, they are often at a level of generality which would make it difficult to measure their achievement. The greater the number of countries to be included in the framework.

the greater also will be the diversity of more specific objectives. Within each country the relationship between social assistance and other elements of the social protection package is mediated by the structure and form of government. the level of unemployment, the demographic profile and the overall size of the economy. The OECD countries satisfy certain basic criteria for admission to the organisation, but beyond that member states vary in many significant respects. One of the findings of the study is that social assistance programmes are too diverse for such a relative measuring rod to yield comprehensible results.

Secondly, we might identify certain benchmark criteria, as used in one country, and apply them to the schemes in the other countries. For example, we might turn to the elaboration of general 'aims, priorities and objectives', as presented by the UK Department of Social Security (1995). These include: that benefits should focus on the most needy: that there should be minimum disincentive effects within the benefit system: that the benefit system should be as simple as possible; that benefits should adapt to the differing needs of people rather than the other way around; that fraud and abuse should be kept to a minimum: that personal responsibility should be encouraged". Two observations must be made at this stage. First. these priorities and objectives are not criteria for the evaluation of either efficiency or effectiveness. There is no indication of what methodological procedures or data would be required to relate outcome to objectives systematically. Secondly, they are

4

These stategic priorities and objectives are presented in the context of the British social security system and not just the social assistance component. However, and by definition, several may be considered to apply to the objectives and operation of social assistance schemes.

primarily internal objectives for the benefit system, without any broader view of what the outcomes of social assistance are meant to be. Such a view, of course. relates to the elaboration of wider policy and societal objectives: these are not always made explicit, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. However, in some countries they are made more explicit. For example, the Australian government proposes a set of specific objectives for social policy within the context of a wider statement of objectives for social justice (equity, equality, access and participation). Quebec, among the Canadian provinces, also specifies objectives for its social assistance schemes.

Nonetheless, it would not be appropriate to derive evaluative standards from the objectives of any one territory, whether the United Kingdom, Australia. Quebec or anywhere else. There is no reason to suppose that even if valid criteria could be identified they would be relevant elsewhere.

The third approach is to construct evaluative criteria from first principles. We are not the first to seek benchmarks against which to measure social security schemes ( Meade, 1978; NCC, 1984). Schulte (1994) has also used criteria derived particularly from a legal and administrative perspective to compare social assistance schemes. In a recent comprehensive survey, Barr (1992) has identified three categories of objectives for social institutions: efficiency, equity or supporting living standards, and administrative feasibility. These dimensions, formal and abstract, can be elaborated to suggest an evaluative framework for the comparative assessment of social assistance.

Barr argues that efficiency has the following aspects:

® Macro efficiency: the proportion of GDP committed to total social protection should avoid distortions which generate inflation.

® Micro efficiency: policy should ensure the efficient division of total welfare state resources between the different programmes. This applies to the division between social insurance and social assistance benefits.

B Incentives: the range of benefits should minimise adverse effects on labour supply, employment, saving and other forms of behaviour. The number and extent of 'traps' (savings, unemployment, poverty, disability) should be minimised if not eliminated.

His second strategic aim. 'supporting living standards', is wide-ranging and can be sub-divided into at least seven goals:

• Poverty relief: within any country or society no individual/family/house- hold should fall below a prescribed minimum. However, the choice of standard is normative. The effectiveness with which this objective is achieved may be measured by the numbers falling below the prescribed level (a simple head count); or by how much below these people fall (the poverty gap) and for how long they are below the poverty line (life cycle/duration).

• Protection of accustomed standards: no one should experience an unexpected or dramatic fall in livi ng standards. Social assistance should provide protection and security against contingent events such as unemployment, disability, death of a bread-winner - either on a continuing or one-off basis. An indicator would be a replacement rate of income before and after a given life event.

® Income smoothing: structures and policies should enable individuals to reallocate their consumption over their lifetime. Assistance should be available when needs are acute (for example when there are young children, or costs associated with illness or disability).

• Vertical equity: the system should redistribute toward individuals or families with lower incomes. By definition, social assistance payments are

made to the poor and not the rich, and to that extent they automatically contribute to this goal_ provided that their financing is progressive.

® Horizontal equity: benefits should take account of family size, age and composition. This requires that appropriate equivalence scales are applied to benefit rates to reflect differences in families' needs. Also, circumstances such as the extra costs of disability or illness should be taken into account when assessing the level of benefit.

® Dignity: policies and services should preserve individual dignity and should not engender unnecessary stigma. The difficulty here is in defining dignity and stigma and finding relevant indicators.

® Social solidarity: social programmes should seek to promote cohesion and to reduce exclusion. This objective too is fraught with definitional and measurement difficulties.

Lastly, administrative feasibility entails the following two objectives:

® Simplicity: the system should be simple, easy to understand and as cheap as possible to administer. Indicators might include administrative costs as a proportion of benefit expenditure, error rates in adjudication. kiwis of take-up or evidence of claimant satisfaction.

® Absence of abuse: there should be minimal fraud. Indicators might include estimates of the extent of fraudulent activity and the numbers of prosecutions.

It is apparent that these criteria are numerous, that each of them is complex and that some are difficult to put into operation. This is especially so with respect to social assistance programmes which serve people who are frequently vulnerable or marginal within the societies in which they live. The above criteria would have to be interpreted sensitively to reflect the experience of users. Nevertheless, Barris list suggests the sort of measuring rods which would need to be applied if a normative comparison of social assistance systems is to be undertaken.

Yet this approach also faces practical and conceptual problems. First, even within a national context there are frequently limits to what is analytically possible because of data deficiency. The absence of detailed, accurate or recent data on the funding of social assistance, the characteristics of claimants, the impact on labour supply. the treatment of urgent or exceptional needs and the role and responsibilities of non-governmental organisations are all areas where information is patchy. Secondly. there is no fundamental agreement on basic definitions: social security, let alone the more specific term social assistance, means different things in different countries. Within and between countries there are differences over the meaning and measurement of poverty, inequality and unemployment. Thirdly, even if indicators for specified outcomes could be found, a further problem remains: the causal relationship between objectives inputs. outputs and outcomes will remain unclear. Indeed. such apparent relationships lie at the heart of important debates about dependency, underclass and incentives. Fourthly. it could be argued that these criteria give too little attention to the consequences of aspects of the administrative structure of social assistance, including rights and discretion. or local variation - aspects which Schulte (1994) emphasises.

8.6 Conclusion

This study has compared the structure and operations of arrangements for providing minimum income protection in 24 countries of the OECD. The research has found that as a form of social security, resource-tested social assistance is becoming more important in nearly all the countries studied, both in terms of expenditure and claimant numbers. There are wide differences in the form and structure of provision, while there are also similarities. By comparing key characteristics, it is possible to create a typology of social assistance regimes, which in some respects is consonant with previous efforts. but in others cuts across them.

While policy debates also vary, there are a number of issues which are salient in most countries to varying degrees. particularly that of work incentives. Perhaps the clearest distinctions, however. between different countries' arrangements for social assistance, apart from the level of benefits provided, are whether they are organised on a national or local basis, and whether needs are met through one general inclusive scheme or on a categ_{orical basis.}

Such differences raise questions about how the performance of different schemes can be evaluated comparatively. We have discussed some criteria for how schemes might be judged, though it was not within our remit to carry out such an evaluation in this study. Nonetheless, we hope that it provides the beginnings of an empirical basis for that task to be attempted.