CAPÍTULO XII LA TEORÍA MARXISTA DE LA HISTORIA
2. LOS APORTES DE MARX A LA CIENCIA DE LA HISTORIA
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have a number of potential roles in relation to schemes of social assistance. One role is to act as campaigning bodies, monitoring policy and administration of benefits and providing representation for claimants. This `poverty lobby' or `welfare rights' function is well-developed in a number of countries and is discussed in more detail in the next chapter. They may also be involved in the provision of benefits and services, although typically these are in kind, rather than cash. In certain countries, such as Germany and Portugal, some NGO are 'incorporated' into the system of social assistance. In Germany this takes the form of provision of services such as residential care. The contractual relationship between these voluntary agencies and the social assistance authorities is regulated by law. In Japan, there are a number of NGOs which are involved in service provision, such as training schemes. accommodation for homeless people and care for elderly or disabled people. Switzerland has an extensive network of NGOs which, in some of the smaller communes at least, functions as an alternative system of assistance for people who are unable or unwilling to make use of the rather stigmatised formal social assistance scheme. In other countries such as Italy, where social assistance provision for some groups is very limited, religious and voluntary bodies also play an important role in providing substitute assistance. The growth of such organisations as food banks in Canada and New Zealand is also indicative of increasing levels of need. It is said that claimants in New Zealand are often referred to such organisations by the benefit authorities, as much for their role in providing advocacy as for the practical aid which they offer. In Luxembourg and Austria. some NGOs can make cash payments, sometimes in emergencies, for which they are later reimbursed through social assistance. The importance of NGOs appears to be increasing at present, and even in those
countries where they have traditionally played a very limited role, such as Denmark and Finland, they are becoming more significant. Their relevance to schemes of social assistance is still regarded as marginal, however, in the Nordic countries. Organisations which play a role comparable to that of the voluntary sector in the UK are few, and marginal to the administration of social assistance. In the UK, NGOs have tended to be wary of policy changes which could involve their substituting for statutory provision, on the grounds that this might undermine their independent role.
4.1.1 Quality and scrutiny of administration
The term 'quality` is highly contested and despite a growing interest in its meaning and application in the general field of management and administration, there is little evidence that it has been subject to systematic evaluation in the context of social security. The general correlates of quality include accessibility, acceptability, equity, efficiency, effectiveness and, more recently. customer service. The established portfolio of social security research has focused primarily on inputs (the volume of resource), outputs (numbers in receipt of benefit) or outcomes (distributional impact or standard of living) rather than on process of benefit delivery. The UK appears to be one of the countries where claimants' views on service delivery are sought using regular attitudinal surveys (see, for example, Russell and Whitworth. 1991: Smith and Wright, 1993).
This chapter has described the structures and processes by which claims are initiated, benefits received and redress of grievance provided. No firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of available evidence. But to ignore or avoid the issue of quality in relation to benefit adjudication and delivery would be to disregard a commitment which is at the heart of policy agendas in most social security systems. It is evident. certainly in the British context and exemplified by the establishment of 'Next Steps' executive agencies responsible for the implementation of social security policy (Ibbs Report. 1989; Department of Social Security, 1995), that there is growing interest in quality processes of benefit delivery: whether claimants have easy access, are treated courteously, are well informed, are paid promptly (Ditch, 1994). This is not to detract from the significance of either benefit levels or outcomes, but is a recognition that how systems are organised to provide a service is important for policy maker and claimant alike.
For a number of the countries there is very little evidence about the quality of administrative decision making. In the Netherlands, there is a strong perception that speed is prioritised to an extent which seriously prejudices the quality of decisions on claims (Commission van der Zwan, 1993). The administration of the social assistance scheme in Finland has been criticised as deteriorating rapidly under the weight of increasing numbers of claims (Lauronen and Lehto, 1991: Lehto and Laminipaa, 1992; Mantysaari, 1993). Administrative efficiency is also regarded as problematic in Norway (Terum, 1994).
There is considerable variation in the rights of appeal which are available to dissatisfied claimants (Table 4.2). These rights may include local or internal reviews, appeals to specialist courts, and hearings in general courts. The appeals system in Turkey is described as straightforward and equitable though no information is available about its actual usage in assistance cases. In Canada. rights of appeal vary across provinces, and there have been recent moves to limit the range of decisions which carry appeal rights. Nonetheless, there has been a marked increase in the number of appeals in the early I 990s - a period of benefit cuts. By contrast, the appeals system in Switzerland is apparently hardly used. while in Finland too there appears to be Iittle confidence in the appeals structure, resulting in low rates of use (Tanninen and Julkenen, 1993: Huhtanen. 1994). In Italy, the appeals process is described as 'complex and slow' (Saporiti, 1994) and this can also be the case in Japan if the general courts are used (although special social assistance hearings are faster). Some countries have recently expanded opportunities for claimants to make use of appeals through the general legal
system: this has happened in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands_ In Belgium this was in explicit recognition of the superior quality of administrative justice available in the Labour courts, which had been demonstrated by a number of studies (van HuffeI, 1990; Bodart and Dijon. 1990; Huyse (a al., 1991). In the USA the degree of administrative discretion and the appeal rights of claimants appear to vary with the benefit received. with General Assistance offering the least rights and Supplemental Security Income the greatest. Claimants of Aid to Families with Dependent Children have the right to only one hearing. which is at the state agency level.
Although appeals to specialist tribunals or courts are free of charge in most countries. there are usually some costs associated with use of the mainstream courts. It is also often the case that claimants' success at appeals may be increased by legal or para-legal representation, and a number of countries provide legal aid for social assistance tribunals.
4.12 Conclusion
Social assistance schemes are a product of the overall structure of social protection within each country and of the prevailing constitutional and political arrangements. Of necessity, all social assistance schemes arecomplex, as they seek to adjust to the
diverse and changing needs of claimants on the one hand and the interests of tax payers and employers on the other. Certain aspects of the administrative process, such as methods of application and payment, reporting requirements on claimants and recovery of overpayments. seem. at least in principle, broadly similar in most countries. Mechanisms for fraud control and detection. and procedures for appeal
and redress, seem more variable and reflect to a greater extent the differences in context and scale between the various systems. However, more research needs to be undertaken looking in detail at the practicalities of administration 'on the ground' in the different countries if we are to understand better the role of administration and benefit delivery in the translation of policy objectives into outcomes.