This paper seek, to find out if budget constraints is a reason to refuse access to social services in a three identified major welfare regimes, as classified in 1990,by a Swedish academician as follows . Namely the Liberal exemplified by the USA, the social democrate exemplified by the Sweden and the Corporatist exemplified by the Germans.
The budget constraints which are the limitation of the estimated spending certainly will envisage both negative and positive effects on each of the differing welfare states.However, apart from the budget, the social services of the various welfare states are been financed by the voluntary welfare (with in family and outsiders, where people give in time for free or make voluntary charitable donations in other forms. Private provision is another source which is individual savings and voluntary private insurance. Even the labour market via full employment, Firms provide for their employees in addition to paying wages, benefits such as in the face of sickness, injury or retirement. Looking at the impact of the budget constraints in a Liberalist state as the USA, it will mean a cut in its public expenditures .To adjust this cut, will implies apply a ‘means testing assistance’, which require that social services can be provided only to those individuals who after been assessed merits the criteria of issue a service. It further explains that only those badly in need will be granted services and not just that in need.
The USA as portrait in the 2000census by Kenneth Prewitt(2000) the United States was 87% white in 1925, 80% white in 1950, 72% white in 2000 and by 2050 it is projected that we will be about 50% white.According to such a statistics, it reveals that the mortality rates is low and therefore having higher living standards; . It will therefore imply that the means testing assistance will benefit mostly the Minority population whose mortality rate is high and living standards low. It can then be critised here that the majority population with higher living standards are not to benefit which portrait social services to be rigid, since it meant only for the poor. Again it can be argued that the majority can afford for their private insurance and make substantive savings which help care for their social needs.Usually these private contributions are met with little or no Further looking at the voluntary welfare, in a market geared economy like the USA, it will mean time is valued in money terms. Even the charitable organisations, whose social services are at a little or no charged rate, can still not be afforded by the minority population who do not merit the means testing assistance. All of these further go to widen the gap between the rich (majority) and the poor (minority).
In a Social Democratic state like Sweden ,definitely the budget constraints to reduce social services will be met with devastating consequences on the government and its citizens . The ‘means testing assistance is what the government will apply in facing public expenditure cuts. Sweden unlike the USA, the government provides universally social services to all its citizens. By reducing its expenditure will mean a blow to its citizens and a failure to the government not to satisfy, the needs of its citizens.Such majors can spring up uprising and chariots; can bring about regime change and even National war. Like the private insurance, unlike in the USA, it will be met with short comings since the incentive to save is almost reduced. Lastly, like the voluntary welfare from friends and family members may be undesired.
The strength of the charitable organisations in such a country could be questioned; since again the government is solely to be blamed for not satisfying the social services of its citizens.Lastly, in a Corporatist state like Germany, the budget constraints will mean that the government to reduce public expenditure cuts and apply the ‘means testing assistance’. Implying the needs of the badly needed will be provided and not just the needy. Unlike Sweden and the USA, it will imply therefore that the government aim of including informal roles of family structures welfare support, for instance in the care of children and the long term chronically sick will be met with discontent by its citizens.Since only those parents who can afford for their children like school needs etc will benefit. This will be met with opposition, as some parents will object such an approach.
If most of the agitators are pro-Nazi, it could bring back movements like the Nazi movement. Also, the private insurance, effect in such a country will be positive since it generate the incentive to save, even though could be met with difficulty. It will further go to strengthen, the charitable movements who will be working to outright this cuts.Conclusively, even though,’ Economic imperatives of reducing National budget deficits, have highlighted in Britain, USA and Canada public expenditure cuts'(Walker and Walker 1987)Armitagge,1975, Mullaly 1993; Sidle 1986). A budget constraints should not be used as a reason to reduce social services. As we have seen in a Liberalist state as the USA, its goes to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. given rise to social structures, discrimination and inequality.
Then in a Social democratic state like Sweden, it sorts to begin uprising and chariots which often result to regime change.Finally in a Corporatist state like Germany, even though in the private provisions some positive effect could be realised, like the awareness to make some private saving, but such oppositions as who got the right for children benefits could bring back movements like the Nazis. It is then argued that the government can extend borrowing from International bodies like the IMF to satisfy its citizen’s social needs which will be balanced from the countries profits on Economic Growth and Taxation.