This article focuses on the changes in social care sector which took place in Europe and after the restitution of independence in Lithuania the last decades and are named as privatization. In social care sector privatization is known as a process of services provision by non-profit public agencies (NGOs), informal sector and by profit agencies. These changes can be explained by actor and new-institutionalism theories as well as by the mix of these two theories. This article presents general privatisation concept and potential patterns as well as peculiarities of these in social care (social work services) sector. According to the actor theory, the expansion or decline of welfare state is understood as results of individuals or collectives' rational actions. As rational actors cope with different previous political decisions, institutional frames and other limitations and possibilities it is useful to analyse privatization in the light of new-institutionalism theory as well. According to the new-institutionalism theory, the institutions of welfare state are reflected and formed by choices and strategies of actors. The way and models of privatization depend on welfare state institutions. Two ideal institutional types are separated – pluralist and corporatist institutions. Analysis of these ideal institutional types' differences defining regulation, organization, financing and production helps to explain the extent and models of privatization.
This article focuses on the changes in social care sector which took place in Europe and after the restitution of independence in Lithuania the last decades and are named as privatization. In social care sector privatization is known as a process of services provision by non-profit public agencies (NGOs), informal sector and by profit agencies. These changes can be explained by actor and new-institutionalism theories as well as by the mix of these two theories. This article presents general privatisation concept and potential patterns as well as peculiarities of these in social care (social work services) sector. According to the actor theory, the expansion or decline of welfare state is understood as results of individuals or collectives' rational actions. As rational actors cope with different previous political decisions, institutional frames and other limitations and possibilities it is useful to analyse privatization in the light of new-institutionalism theory as well. According to the new-institutionalism theory, the institutions of welfare state are reflected and formed by choices and strategies of actors. The way and models of privatization depend on welfare state institutions. Two ideal institutional types are separated – pluralist and corporatist institutions. Analysis of these ideal institutional types' differences defining regulation, organization, financing and production helps to explain the extent and models of privatization.
The article analyses the relationship between democracy and technocracy invoking Lithuanian philosopher Vydūnas' view on the role of moral values playing in the state. Investigating projects directed to the welfare state creation the author asks how much these projects are technocratic in the narrow sense – performing with the help of knowledge of nature sciences, engineering, economics and other, and what role in these pro-jects moral values play. The author distinguishes two types of projects – technocracy in the narrow and in the wide sense. The latter is defined as social engineering based on the interdisciplinary discussion of experts on the questions linked with moral values. The main theses defended are the following: democracy ant technocracy as the methods of governance should not be contrasted; technocracy could not replace democracy which is the system defending freedom of the individual person; moral ideals (freedom, equality, justice, seeking of common good) are the basic guide in the sphere of values for the social engineering directed to the creation of welfare state.
The article analyses the relationship between democracy and technocracy invoking Lithuanian philosopher Vydūnas' view on the role of moral values playing in the state. Investigating projects directed to the welfare state creation the author asks how much these projects are technocratic in the narrow sense – performing with the help of knowledge of nature sciences, engineering, economics and other, and what role in these pro-jects moral values play. The author distinguishes two types of projects – technocracy in the narrow and in the wide sense. The latter is defined as social engineering based on the interdisciplinary discussion of experts on the questions linked with moral values. The main theses defended are the following: democracy ant technocracy as the methods of governance should not be contrasted; technocracy could not replace democracy which is the system defending freedom of the individual person; moral ideals (freedom, equality, justice, seeking of common good) are the basic guide in the sphere of values for the social engineering directed to the creation of welfare state.
The authors in the article reveal the positioning of extreme right political parties in the Western world and Central and Eastern Europe by following such ideological basis as nationalism and welfare chauvinism, practically rejecting immigrants and their willingness to use the benefits and services of the mentioned welfare systems in the presented Western as well as Central and Eastern European countries. The authors maintain their position, applying the secondary data from European Social Survey, International Monetary Fund and OECD data as well as interpretations of the authors from different foreign countries. In the end of the article the authors pose the one of the most interesting scientific and practical questions – why the place of the electorate of the "socially excluded" and having low income voters is moving from the left political parties to the side of the extreme right political parties? The further research is necessary in the following direction. This article is the first article of the theme on social chauvinism in Lithuania.
The authors in the article reveal the positioning of extreme right political parties in the Western world and Central and Eastern Europe by following such ideological basis as nationalism and welfare chauvinism, practically rejecting immigrants and their willingness to use the benefits and services of the mentioned welfare systems in the presented Western as well as Central and Eastern European countries. The authors maintain their position, applying the secondary data from European Social Survey, International Monetary Fund and OECD data as well as interpretations of the authors from different foreign countries. In the end of the article the authors pose the one of the most interesting scientific and practical questions – why the place of the electorate of the "socially excluded" and having low income voters is moving from the left political parties to the side of the extreme right political parties? The further research is necessary in the following direction. This article is the first article of the theme on social chauvinism in Lithuania.
The article discusses the emergence of the context of social NGOs that generate income and the conditions of their activity in Lithuania. The author concludes that the changing relationship between the state, the market and civil society led to an apparent growth of civil society organizations and their transformation in the country. The Lithuanian social NGOs have adapted to social changes and assumed responsibility for correcting possible government and market "errors." The welfare state is unable to ensure the different social groups' well-being, thus, its functions are often transferred to the third and the private sector which performs this work with less costs. Civil society organizations, as a counterweight to the private and the public sector, can occupy a strategic position in implementing one of the main developmental principles of modern society and in ensuring the sustainable development of the state. The author proposes to divide Lithuanian non-profit organizations (NGOs that meet the criteria) into two subtypes: traditional NGOs without income-generating activities and NGOs with income-generating activities. In the article, the difficulties that NGOs encounter in applying the principles of entrepreneurship and becoming self-sufficient and financially stable are also discussed. One of the reasons for NGOs' difficulties in becoming independent and sustainable is society's inability to distinguish between public, private and third sector organizations.
The article discusses the emergence of the context of social NGOs that generate income and the conditions of their activity in Lithuania. The author concludes that the changing relationship between the state, the market and civil society led to an apparent growth of civil society organizations and their transformation in the country. The Lithuanian social NGOs have adapted to social changes and assumed responsibility for correcting possible government and market "errors." The welfare state is unable to ensure the different social groups' well-being, thus, its functions are often transferred to the third and the private sector which performs this work with less costs. Civil society organizations, as a counterweight to the private and the public sector, can occupy a strategic position in implementing one of the main developmental principles of modern society and in ensuring the sustainable development of the state. The author proposes to divide Lithuanian non-profit organizations (NGOs that meet the criteria) into two subtypes: traditional NGOs without income-generating activities and NGOs with income-generating activities. In the article, the difficulties that NGOs encounter in applying the principles of entrepreneurship and becoming self-sufficient and financially stable are also discussed. One of the reasons for NGOs' difficulties in becoming independent and sustainable is society's inability to distinguish between public, private and third sector organizations.
The article discusses the emergence of the context of social NGOs that generate income and the conditions of their activity in Lithuania. The author concludes that the changing relationship between the state, the market and civil society led to an apparent growth of civil society organizations and their transformation in the country. The Lithuanian social NGOs have adapted to social changes and assumed responsibility for correcting possible government and market "errors." The welfare state is unable to ensure the different social groups' well-being, thus, its functions are often transferred to the third and the private sector which performs this work with less costs. Civil society organizations, as a counterweight to the private and the public sector, can occupy a strategic position in implementing one of the main developmental principles of modern society and in ensuring the sustainable development of the state. The author proposes to divide Lithuanian non-profit organizations (NGOs that meet the criteria) into two subtypes: traditional NGOs without income-generating activities and NGOs with income-generating activities. In the article, the difficulties that NGOs encounter in applying the principles of entrepreneurship and becoming self-sufficient and financially stable are also discussed. One of the reasons for NGOs' difficulties in becoming independent and sustainable is society's inability to distinguish between public, private and third sector organizations.
After the collapse of communism, the post-communist countries had to transform their economic and social systems, democratize the political system, etc. The post-communist countries had to demonstrate their ability and potential to create strong social security system (social model), thereby ensuring the welfare for its citizens. The newly created social models had to rely on a certain notion of prosperity, while the state had to take care of the implementation of the welfare regime, formulate the methods and measures that are necessary for the achievement of the welfare state. There are many attempts at understanding, evaluating and describing the social (welfare) models and their development in post-communist states. Case studies and comparative studies of several countries are used most commonly. Some of the researchers attempt to put the postcommunist model into the traditional typology of G. Esping-Andersen's three models – liberal, conservative and social democratic. However, there is a growing consensus, that the postcommunist states have the features of all three models, are unique and therefore form a separate model. Taking this into account, the aim of this paper is formulated – to identify and analyze social model of post-communist states. G. Esping-Andersen's classification of welfare regimes is considered to be the main and most prevalent in the scientific community, however, many countries have different features of all G. Esping-Andersen's types and do not match just one of the models exactly. It is for this reason that the typology of G. Esping-Andersen has received a lot of criticism of its rigor and therefore there are many attempts to correct, adjust or extend this typology, usually by adding one or more models. One of these attempts applies to the search for a post-communist model. The analysis of social models proves that the social policy of post-communist countries does not reflect any type of G. Esping-Andersen's typology and is so mixed and specific that it should be considered as a separate post-communist model. The post-communist countries are characterized by a lower level of economic and social development, high levels of corruption, high migration rates, social inequality, lower levels of social protection, etc. It was determined that the welfare system of the post-communist states was influenced by three factors: the legacy of the past, the influence of the West and political reforms. The legacy of the past is, above all, communist experience, although it has been proven that the origins of the development of social models and welfare of the post-communist countries backs to the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. The influence of the West is mostly connected to the European Union (because states had to meet strict requirements and make social, economic and political changes in order to become the members of EU) and other international organizations (such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund). Political reforms are mainly related to expanding citizens' rights, increasing social protection and social services. The biggest challenge to the creation of social model and a welfare system was the period of transformation, which took place under difficult circumstances, and was accompanied by shocks, upheavals: in the early 1990's the economic recession has begun, the legacy of the socialist model has led to a limitation of financial resources, the state has faced major demographic changes, the socioeconomic structure of society has changed, savings in the social security system increased as well as poverty, unemployment, inequality etc.
After the collapse of communism, the post-communist countries had to transform their economic and social systems, democratize the political system, etc. The post-communist countries had to demonstrate their ability and potential to create strong social security system (social model), thereby ensuring the welfare for its citizens. The newly created social models had to rely on a certain notion of prosperity, while the state had to take care of the implementation of the welfare regime, formulate the methods and measures that are necessary for the achievement of the welfare state. There are many attempts at understanding, evaluating and describing the social (welfare) models and their development in post-communist states. Case studies and comparative studies of several countries are used most commonly. Some of the researchers attempt to put the postcommunist model into the traditional typology of G. Esping-Andersen's three models – liberal, conservative and social democratic. However, there is a growing consensus, that the postcommunist states have the features of all three models, are unique and therefore form a separate model. Taking this into account, the aim of this paper is formulated – to identify and analyze social model of post-communist states. G. Esping-Andersen's classification of welfare regimes is considered to be the main and most prevalent in the scientific community, however, many countries have different features of all G. Esping-Andersen's types and do not match just one of the models exactly. It is for this reason that the typology of G. Esping-Andersen has received a lot of criticism of its rigor and therefore there are many attempts to correct, adjust or extend this typology, usually by adding one or more models. One of these attempts applies to the search for a post-communist model. The analysis of social models proves that the social policy of post-communist countries does not reflect any type of G. Esping-Andersen's typology and is so mixed and specific that it should be considered as a separate post-communist model. The post-communist countries are characterized by a lower level of economic and social development, high levels of corruption, high migration rates, social inequality, lower levels of social protection, etc. It was determined that the welfare system of the post-communist states was influenced by three factors: the legacy of the past, the influence of the West and political reforms. The legacy of the past is, above all, communist experience, although it has been proven that the origins of the development of social models and welfare of the post-communist countries backs to the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. The influence of the West is mostly connected to the European Union (because states had to meet strict requirements and make social, economic and political changes in order to become the members of EU) and other international organizations (such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund). Political reforms are mainly related to expanding citizens' rights, increasing social protection and social services. The biggest challenge to the creation of social model and a welfare system was the period of transformation, which took place under difficult circumstances, and was accompanied by shocks, upheavals: in the early 1990's the economic recession has begun, the legacy of the socialist model has led to a limitation of financial resources, the state has faced major demographic changes, the socioeconomic structure of society has changed, savings in the social security system increased as well as poverty, unemployment, inequality etc.
This article analyzes the relationship between the social and climate policies of the European Union member states and examines the concept of the eco–social state. In the climate crisis era, the need for a close link between social and climate policies is particularly acute. The European Green Deal and other EU strategies reflect a political agenda with a specific interest in social and ecological goals. We aim to answer whether more significant state efforts in the social field are related to a similarly more substantial commitment in climate policy or whether a greater focus on one means less attention on another. On a theoretical level, we discuss the challenges of climate change for social policy and present the concept of climate justice. The similarities and differences between the ecological and the welfare state are also examined. We argue that the concept of climate justice highlights the phenomenon of a double and even triple injustice on a global level, which requires joint efforts in spheres of social and climate policy. Eco-social state combines social and environmental institutions intending to ensure welfare and sustainability and thus complements the traditional concept of the welfare state. The Koch-Fritz (2014) classification, which distinguishes between the established, deadlocked, emerging, and failing eco-social states, is presented in the paper and used for the empirical analysis. The empirical part of the paper employs non-parametrical correlation and hierarchical cluster analysis. The former allows for exploring the links between the ecological and social indicators. The latter enables countries to be grouped according to social and climate indicators and compared to the traditional classification of welfare states and Koch-Fritz models of eco-social states. The analysis is based on social and climate indicators of the Europe 2020 strategy. The study found that countries that provide relatively more significant funding for traditional social problems also perform better in climate change adaptation and mitigation policies by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort–sharing sectors and final energy consumption. We show that clusters of the EU member states in terms of social and climate indicators (eco–social state models) are very similar to their membership in the traditional welfare states' classification. Moreover, social democratic welfare states are better prepared to address climate change than countries representing other types of welfare states. Thus the analysis confirms the social democratic welfare states as established eco–social states, while the conservative-corporate and liberal welfare states can indeed be called deadlocked eco–social states with average results. We show, however, that Lithuania, together with other Eastern European and Southern European countries, fluctuates on both the best and the worst social and climate change mitigation outcomes. Hence those should be attributed to a group with the mixed results and can be named as failed-emerging eco-social states.
This article analyzes the relationship between the social and climate policies of the European Union member states and examines the concept of the eco–social state. In the climate crisis era, the need for a close link between social and climate policies is particularly acute. The European Green Deal and other EU strategies reflect a political agenda with a specific interest in social and ecological goals. We aim to answer whether more significant state efforts in the social field are related to a similarly more substantial commitment in climate policy or whether a greater focus on one means less attention on another. On a theoretical level, we discuss the challenges of climate change for social policy and present the concept of climate justice. The similarities and differences between the ecological and the welfare state are also examined. We argue that the concept of climate justice highlights the phenomenon of a double and even triple injustice on a global level, which requires joint efforts in spheres of social and climate policy. Eco-social state combines social and environmental institutions intending to ensure welfare and sustainability and thus complements the traditional concept of the welfare state. The Koch-Fritz (2014) classification, which distinguishes between the established, deadlocked, emerging, and failing eco-social states, is presented in the paper and used for the empirical analysis. The empirical part of the paper employs non-parametrical correlation and hierarchical cluster analysis. The former allows for exploring the links between the ecological and social indicators. The latter enables countries to be grouped according to social and climate indicators and compared to the traditional classification of welfare states and Koch-Fritz models of eco-social states. The analysis is based on social and climate indicators of the Europe 2020 strategy. The study found that countries that provide relatively more significant funding for traditional social problems also perform better in climate change adaptation and mitigation policies by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort–sharing sectors and final energy consumption. We show that clusters of the EU member states in terms of social and climate indicators (eco–social state models) are very similar to their membership in the traditional welfare states' classification. Moreover, social democratic welfare states are better prepared to address climate change than countries representing other types of welfare states. Thus the analysis confirms the social democratic welfare states as established eco–social states, while the conservative-corporate and liberal welfare states can indeed be called deadlocked eco–social states with average results. We show, however, that Lithuania, together with other Eastern European and Southern European countries, fluctuates on both the best and the worst social and climate change mitigation outcomes. Hence those should be attributed to a group with the mixed results and can be named as failed-emerging eco-social states.
This article analyzes the relationship between the social and climate policies of the European Union member states and examines the concept of the eco–social state. In the climate crisis era, the need for a close link between social and climate policies is particularly acute. The European Green Deal and other EU strategies reflect a political agenda with a specific interest in social and ecological goals. We aim to answer whether more significant state efforts in the social field are related to a similarly more substantial commitment in climate policy or whether a greater focus on one means less attention on another. On a theoretical level, we discuss the challenges of climate change for social policy and present the concept of climate justice. The similarities and differences between the ecological and the welfare state are also examined. We argue that the concept of climate justice highlights the phenomenon of a double and even triple injustice on a global level, which requires joint efforts in spheres of social and climate policy. Eco-social state combines social and environmental institutions intending to ensure welfare and sustainability and thus complements the traditional concept of the welfare state. The Koch-Fritz (2014) classification, which distinguishes between the established, deadlocked, emerging, and failing eco-social states, is presented in the paper and used for the empirical analysis. The empirical part of the paper employs non-parametrical correlation and hierarchical cluster analysis. The former allows for exploring the links between the ecological and social indicators. The latter enables countries to be grouped according to social and climate indicators and compared to the traditional classification of welfare states and Koch-Fritz models of eco-social states. The analysis is based on social and climate indicators of the Europe 2020 strategy. The study found that countries that provide relatively more significant funding for traditional social problems also perform better in climate change adaptation and mitigation policies by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort–sharing sectors and final energy consumption. We show that clusters of the EU member states in terms of social and climate indicators (eco–social state models) are very similar to their membership in the traditional welfare states' classification. Moreover, social democratic welfare states are better prepared to address climate change than countries representing other types of welfare states. Thus the analysis confirms the social democratic welfare states as established eco–social states, while the conservative-corporate and liberal welfare states can indeed be called deadlocked eco–social states with average results. We show, however, that Lithuania, together with other Eastern European and Southern European countries, fluctuates on both the best and the worst social and climate change mitigation outcomes. Hence those should be attributed to a group with the mixed results and can be named as failed-emerging eco-social states.
This article analyzes the relationship between the social and climate policies of the European Union member states and examines the concept of the eco–social state. In the climate crisis era, the need for a close link between social and climate policies is particularly acute. The European Green Deal and other EU strategies reflect a political agenda with a specific interest in social and ecological goals. We aim to answer whether more significant state efforts in the social field are related to a similarly more substantial commitment in climate policy or whether a greater focus on one means less attention on another. On a theoretical level, we discuss the challenges of climate change for social policy and present the concept of climate justice. The similarities and differences between the ecological and the welfare state are also examined. We argue that the concept of climate justice highlights the phenomenon of a double and even triple injustice on a global level, which requires joint efforts in spheres of social and climate policy. Eco-social state combines social and environmental institutions intending to ensure welfare and sustainability and thus complements the traditional concept of the welfare state. The Koch-Fritz (2014) classification, which distinguishes between the established, deadlocked, emerging, and failing eco-social states, is presented in the paper and used for the empirical analysis. The empirical part of the paper employs non-parametrical correlation and hierarchical cluster analysis. The former allows for exploring the links between the ecological and social indicators. The latter enables countries to be grouped according to social and climate indicators and compared to the traditional classification of welfare states and Koch-Fritz models of eco-social states. The analysis is based on social and climate indicators of the Europe 2020 strategy. The study found that countries that provide relatively more significant funding for traditional social problems also perform better in climate change adaptation and mitigation policies by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an effort–sharing sectors and final energy consumption. We show that clusters of the EU member states in terms of social and climate indicators (eco–social state models) are very similar to their membership in the traditional welfare states' classification. Moreover, social democratic welfare states are better prepared to address climate change than countries representing other types of welfare states. Thus the analysis confirms the social democratic welfare states as established eco–social states, while the conservative-corporate and liberal welfare states can indeed be called deadlocked eco–social states with average results. We show, however, that Lithuania, together with other Eastern European and Southern European countries, fluctuates on both the best and the worst social and climate change mitigation outcomes. Hence those should be attributed to a group with the mixed results and can be named as failed-emerging eco-social states.
