Muddling through: a term used to express that to get to goal, you edge slowly towards it- so why mud? Because decision-making is a dirty job – many object on the way to reaching your goal

Kinds of actions

Asiya shlilit : specifically not doing something

Mediniyut Lo Mutzheret: We know what we wanna do yet don’t speak about it.

àin other words, mediniyut is what happens in practice and not what people publish

Mediniyut in SW = changes in US. Because we can’t depend on others to do our decisions. I.e. you need contacts who have decision-making powers

Q) at which places do SW mediniyut take place?

Government

In gov’t – contradictory forces meet – there is a fight for power, with some negotiation – give and take –not always aesthetic, yet it is absolutely ok.

-SW needs to lean the system in order to pass law –needs to be a sort of politician

Welfare policy in Israel – Dev. is 80s and 90

-in Israel in 80/90s –2 [sometimes] opposing forces:

On one hand:

Retrenchment: reduction of gov’t responsibility t/w population
Marginalization: of social services

On other hand:

Expansion: of Social services to selected populations

Retrenchment:

-attempts to cut S. services

cuts: felt in the short run
structural changes: felt in the long run

marginalization:

-putting the gov’t’s social responsibility to the margins

àreducing social services to a residual-sideline (i.e. only worry about the weak)

Idea: a move from Institutional-welfare model to Residual welfare model

Institutional-welfare model: focus on collective welfare. I.e. gov’t worries about the ind. w/I the collective

Residual welfare model: gov’t only steps in when regular ways of free market/sharing of resources failed

ài.e. collective vs. selective welfare system

-until now, Israel is true to European welfare policy of social protection

àb/c of high social solidarity àwasn’t willing to see high social gaps

ànow more like the US model - gov’t only gives limited soc. services

-thus more soc. uncertainty àmore liable to changes dep. on market movementsàmore soc. gaps

-motivating factors in the retrenchment approaches: economic and ideology

Economic claim:

-welfare had b/c to much of a econ. burden on Gov’t

-stronger competition + globalization has made this the extreme where a capitalistic soc. can go (taylor-gooby) àsome econ. even claim you need to cut

-economic dept. in gov’t, businesses, professors agree with this

àthis was the policy until the 96 elections as well as after it in the likud gov’t

-population is getting older – more old foggies/smaller families

neo-conservatists:

-even in leftist parties

àclaim free market is ultimate and soc. services must be cut

àthus must put all $ into the market and not outside it.

-give legitimacy to individualism, and the social stratification

-ignore the fact that move to extreme free market harms various soc. groups and makes huge soc. gap

-in 70s, just like in other developed countries, increase in soc. expenditure

-from 6.09% (1980) to 8.05% (1995) of TMG (even though Israel spend less than other developed countries –w. Euopre spent 60-90% more

1980-89

àthey spent 20%-30%, while Israel spent 14-15%)

1989

Israel 15% while Spain and Greece – 17.9

-BTL fees make less of an income to the TMG than other countries

1992

-France – 19.6%, US 7.6%, Israel 4.6%

1995: went down to 3.9% even though when they added Health tax, it was supposed to up to 5.7%!

Expansionism of Social welfares

-secondary to the retrenchment

-seen in expansion/improvement and making of new services

-they do have a tendency to 1) get the gov’t funds and 2) incr. social responsibility to the groups in question

àhard to ignore the lobbyists/soc. forces =people hwho are poor do have political power

1994: 18% of adults, 24% of kids in Israel are poor

-similar to other %s in Israeli soc. (Jewish/Non-Jewish/European vs. eastern/ Immigrants, vs. non-Immigrants/Old vs. young/Big Vs. Small families

àpolitical forces b/c of cuts: Shas, Immigrant parties

àthe balance of the opposing policies dep. on political strength at given point time of the parties àthat’s why expansionistic policies are secondary

strategies for reduction of services: - pierson

Defunding strategy
Limiting organizations’ power

Defunding strategy

lowering taxes
limiting future funding (i.e. promise not to raise taxed)
raising visibility of the taxes –caused p.r. against the services

example of #3:

-1986: law was passed: less BL from employers/employees and get it paid from national funding and not BT – therefore, it seems like we’re paid more taxes, and inherently, less goes to social services

àalso, now the gov’t has to give BT $ from tax $ and not from employer’s $

àmore visible

attrition (shchika) of power of supporters of welfare policy

ways to do this:

lowering financial basis of those organizations
public attacks
showing that they’re irrelevant
going around them
giving their authority to someone else
accusing of them populism

2 examples:

taking away union’s ability of infl. on social issues
lowing power of “vaadat haavoda veharevacha” of the Knesset

example #1 -union

-unions also had social welfare issues that they worked on.

-in 1995, the gov’t made a national; health law, which lowered the union;’s budget

-->b/c gov’t wanted the unions to have less say on social issues

-assumption: the Israeli institution couldn’t deal w/ the duality of socialism and free market

example #2: the work and welfare committee of Knesset

-this committee was the address for social lobbyists

-they were supposed to 1) stop laws which were anti-social 2) incr. social laws

ways to go around them:

make another sub-committee that will deal w/ disputed matters that gov’t doesn’t want the welfare committee to discuss
bypassing the committee with overriding irregular laws (i.e. chok taktziv shnati) that need the money committee and not the welfare committee, thus bypassing the,

cuts it welfare programs

-i.e. old/unemployment/kids grants

“personal social services”:

-i.e. disabled, old, kids at risk

chok sherutei sa’ad: 1958 – was a poor law, b/c it was based on local and not cetral gov’t responsibility

-prob: doesn’t speak about ind’s rights, needs, funding for those ‘vague’ services

-until 1977, “misrad sa’ad”- people were unsatisfied, so they unified it with labor department to “misrad haavoda veharevacha” – but personal social services were even more hard-hit – after all, those services were too different, and hard to make the right organizational structure

-since the services are meant for the socially (+politically) weak, it can be seen in social expenditure of gov’t:

1980: 4.1 % of gov’t expenditure

1990: 3.0%

1993: 2.7%

-except Shikun and Alya offices – drastic reduction of funding in 1^st half of the 80s

-hardest hit were in personal social services

93-95 – increase in personal social services but less then the general incr. in social funding

3 groups were hard-hit in cuts to them:

kids and youths
correctional services
families bemetzuka

-in 95, still 4% less than in 1980

-hardest hit: correctional services

-in 1990 – still same as 1975

-in 80s, attempts to define rights and ser vides and fundings

-yet treasury objected

-b/c personal social services are part of general work and welfare office, and their clientele are weak, they get pushed to sidelines

bituach Leumi

-attempt to make old payment selective àless universal (=bad)

-right b/f elections of 1992, but got canceled last minute

-kids payment: 2 factors from 1975

lowering its value –i.e. not adjusting it to inflation and average wage
non-universality- selectivity to lower income families

changes in 80s:

1-3 kid families, tax on 1^st 2 kids payment
also on 3^rd kid

1985: cancellation of kids payment on 1^st kid (out of 3) but rather selectively pay it according to income)

1986: cancellation of taxes on kids payment

1987: renewal of taxes on 1^st 2 out of 3 kids’ payment

1990 widening of selectivity that started in 1985, also to 2^nd kid out of 1-3 kids

-non-independent workers – only 2/3 got the $

-independent – even less

àfinal result - the $ did not get to the poor

-in 1993, gov’t pressured to return universality of kids payment

-tried canceling it several times, but gov’t failed

unemployment insurance

-even though only 6% of BTL, there is a lot of soc interest in

2 purposes:

giving living to the unable to work
allow market to function in slow periods

only started unemployment insurance in 1973 after soc/political fights
unemployment on the rise in 80s, so gov’t made it harder to get unemployment benefits

àlower unemployed power vs. market

àlower pay: people have to take whatever job they get regardless of skill

2 ways to have this policy:

harsher criteria
bureaucratic Disentitlement (Lipski)- i.e. making bureaucracy process harder to get the $ - i.e. if you don’t accept the job they offered, (even if paid less then the unemployment benefits) then they don’t give you unemployment for 90 days (vs. 30). Also, radius increase from 40 to 60km

job services: had authoritative secretaries reduced from 153 to 30 –tried unsuccessfully to reduce it to 10

-harsher medical criteria

-you got the sucky jobs (and you could not say no!)

Gov’t blamed unemployed for their state

-turns out that less people asked for unemployment. àyet it did necessarily improve people’s conditions

The widening of social services

Characteristics:

had laws which were later reduced
selectiveness (i.e. to the poor)

Pay supplement (havtachat hachnasa)

Law passed in 80, but only started in 82

àmoved from local Saad offices to BTL

Based on the British supplementary Benefit

based on national wage average
less local decisions
split from the personal social treatment
can deal with disputes in work court
raises status of this population

1982 10,000

1990: 32,000

1995: 75,000 (b/c of aliya

expenditure went up!

80- 1-2%

90- 2.9%

95- 5.3

-yet this is selective!

test of means
work skill test

Bituach Siud:

-law passed in 1980, but only went into effect in 86 b/c of arguments

-depends on old’s daily functioning

i.e. benefits incl:

drive to merkaz yom
housework

-those services were outsourced

2 tests for the Siud

dependency test: by the a public health nurse
income test: by BTL – see spouse’s income

-also this program increased:

88: 21,000

94: 52,000

95: 58,000 (projected)

-budget problems wanted to have harsher criteria, but BTL didn’t give in

Social service widening

-incr. in Kid grants to army serving people – 94-7 movement t/w also to arabs

1996 – also fully housewives and not only as an addition to husband

94 100% of wage and not 75% of women on birth leave

95 women on risk-pregnancy leave get 70% and not 25% of average daily wage

-handicapped kid grant (for cancer) got better/longer

summery

-despite increases in social services, the dominant direction was in a selective/reductionist approach b/c/ of social chage

àelites don’t wanna support poor and they are the ones with the say

from 70s – move from European socialist service to US system

ài.e. individualism/no social control/free market

result:

increased in social gap
reduction of economic status, especially of poor
Israeli soc. is less integrated

3 policy factors:

selectiveness
fragmentation
privatization

selectiveness

-some radicals claim that this actually helps the poor, but it really doesn’t –it hurts them b/c/ the poor don’t have the political power to keep their services’ standard, and thus those services for the poor become poor services

fragmentation:

-When there are systems for the poor, then the strong layewrs of soc. make sure that gov’t have alternatives for them that at least partially fund them too (i.e. they have the political power, remember?) thus you have services for the poor and (better?) services for the rich

too (i.e. they have the political power, remember?) thus you have services for the poor and (better?) services for the rich

privatization

-“efficiency in the private sector” claim might be true, but:

-harder for poor to stand up for their rights to private than public sector (Sullivan)

-gives richer people choice where the poor are stuck w/ the gov’t given (private) service and thus the elites are not there to fight when needed

conclusion

must keep universality of social services in social cohesion and in keeping of democracy

(my question: why democracy?)

àgotta find a universal, but progressive system (progressive – is internally giving more to some –vs. all or non)

Bismarck: the German chancellor that unifies Germany (until today, it is a federation)

-significance: until now, all those sub-states of Germany, there are local elections. -Several subjects are a matter of federal

-Bismarck made up the concept of pension (saving throughout working life for old age)

-there is a diff. that we’ll learn later that there is a diff. b/w pension and old-foggy payment

-until he came, the responsibility of the civilians were in the hands in the religious community and/or with some geographic community (i.e. city)/family

-in the industrial revolution, there is an increase in anonymity as well as an increase in a job-based identity of the individual

-what is important for those unions that I am no longer X from Tel-Aviv, but rather X the smith

-first time that people get help on a wide, anonymous basis and not based on knowing your local big-shot

-with helping the old, there was a need formed a new concept – retirement age (i.e. 60)

-often we see today that social services are made b/c politicians want to remain in power – they fear social unrest

Tamar Gujanski was one of the few who did help the weak (i.e. single parents, etc…)

1910-20 Great Depression. After this, there was a BTL in the US. They gave the unemployment, and a bit of old-foggy installments (social security)

main point: social unrest is perceived as a threat by the gov’t. They just want quiet!

-so that’s why they give basic needs (minimally) in times of economic uncertainty

-in 1942, in middle of WWII gave in a comprehensive plan (gov’t’s request) – they wanted to make a social security institution

Note: -traditionally, income supplement were the weak of soc. who could not work (vs. the able who just not working)

-through adult life, a person pays the gov’t, and this $ is given to the population when they are in justified situations in the future – i.e. old

main idea: that system deals with giving people their minimal needs in time of need

-they force the individual – they individual can’t say, I don’t want to be part of this!

-in Israel: social insurance: I pay and I get back in event of emergencies/needs

-but here, the gov’t pours in $ when BTL is bankrupt (i.e. to avoid social unrest!)

BTL

-yet if they label too much, they it looks so much – so best way to split it is 5% wand 5%

-so, unlike income tax, in BTL, there is a connection b/w the collection and the $’s usage

-if I got too much in one clause (i.e. old clause of BTL payments) and a deficit in another thing, then I cannot transfer the $.

-this system gives civilians somewhat of a security (i.e. in event of emergency, they get the $ and have minimal existence).

Central point -when we look at social services countries, they can be split into 2 broad categories:

-Social services are funded by general taxes (not directed specifically to Social services

àand thus its budget is more constrained than BTL àunlike BTL, they have to compete for gov’t budget

-usually, every year they get about the same $, yet internally is the important changes

ài.e. with time, more old-foggy expenses rise, thus community expenses went downàchanges were made b/c of the changes on the streets, but more accurately to the political ends of what happens on the street

àthere is only a limited amount of $ - can’t raise taxes, thus the sum is pretty constant

-the social services are structured much more diffusely than BTL. They have very few direct services- they out-sources! They only haver K. Mivchan/Adults. (they are Ovdei Medina). They work across the country with same standard, and are under gov’t control

àused to be Chasut Hanoar (social services peogram that b/c if court order, takes juvenile delinquents to institutions. Today, there is a trend to move them to private sector. Same with retarded’s institutions. Same with with omna families (kid lives in other family, with gov’t funding [through some waystations]. The inspection is not gov’t anymore).

0the gov’t give municipality $ to run social services. The municipality runs this

-Associations (Amuta): hen someone wants to advance his cause. He gets his $ into a bank-account in the name of the association (so that income tax doesn’t take it). Also, when there are accidents, insurance won’t recognize it as work accident unless there is a legally recognized body. (so that owner won’t be personally sued)

-when person whats to have a extra-familial cause, he has to make a legal body called amuta= the term helps people advance good causes

There was this Supreme court trial – about a association (matav) helping in Siud

àsince the gov’t now outsourcing to companies. Matav was recognized as a Malkar- not-for-profit organization (helps themselves by calling themselves by getting lower taxes). àthe companies sued matav by saying that what do they and not us get income benefits?

-new concept: chevra letovat hatzibut – somewhere b/w association and company

àthe gov’t says: what you’re doing is not like non-for-profit, so you won’t get tax benefits

-3^rd group- associations that are involved in the social realm that are not for business and they are not governmental either. They can work in whatever they feel is right

why in the 80s? b/c there was as increase in old-foggies (there was less oldies b/c of the holocaust.

-until then, there was no law helping them out. Siud law only helped when they had budget. So they needed a law. Then they had a huge discussion about setting this up –question: are the Siud people gov’t workers? There was a decision in principle saying that Siud that we’re putting this service into the free market (unlike the gov’t workers who think about the lowest price)

main idea – there is an ideological switch to outsourcing (rightwing/capitalistic view is strengthening – vs. socialist view)

àthen you had old-foggy helping associations coming out of the municipal social services (social services paid the municipalities) – the soc. services did not want this services to remain in the municipalities, so that they will have less responsibility over this. –reasoning: “we don’t want to increase the state worker”

-organizational level, do the NFP and companies behave differently? (i.e. beurocrasy/cash-flow, ranking w/I the organization/formality in the organization/relation to the bank)

àgov’t (or municipality works after there is a budget. They have to stick to budget, and they don’t work according to cash-flow

àgov’t agency is told: “you have $x to spend” and he starts spending it” – so lets say he wants a conference, so he goes to the Chashav, and tells him I need 300,000 for the conference and so the Chashav signs the check – the head of the given gov’t agency doesn’t see the $ - just sends the receipts. (of course he needs to hand in a planned budget beforehand)

-the agency head might wanna hire someone new – the budget is already set! But there is a set number of places. Even if he tries to take $ away from budget for HR purposes. There is a concept of a maximum threshold of employees.

àif there is a project, he can hire someone new, but this person will not be a gov’t worker – when project is over, so is the job (it’s the project’s worker, not the agency) – thus there is no tenure, and is not a gov’t worker.

-the gov’t agency boss doesn’t deal w/ money. The $ is taken care of, including wages. All he had to do is spend the $ that the gov’t gives him for running purposes.

-he is evaluated by: did he manage to spend and run all of the budget he wanted.

àif he didn’t spend it, he’ll be blamed for not doing all he planned, and he’ll get less $ and it will be assumed that he won’t need as much next year

-the good managers take $ beyond what they are really supposed to do, and gov’t has deficit

-can’t do overhiring, beyond what internal ministry said, so you overpay by adding tons of “additions” w/o speaking and getting permission (despite it being illegal)

-so the gov’t sais: pay back: and the local municipality said: we’ll cut schools and then gov’t said: so lay back people – so the municipality said, no problem, we’ll fire teachers. So the gov’t gave up.

Conclusion: there is a budget and the gov’t and municipality in practice don’t have to do worry. They just can’t hire- that is the HR department’s job

-we want to hire. So they have to ask how much $ they have (the expenses are higher than just wages)

-they know the can pay 3 months but have a projective (based on guessed income) budget, they tell person he’ll probably stay for at least the year.

-they always have to ask: do I have enough $? He can’t overdo his budget àb/f I see the $, I can’t promise

-often in gov’t bodies there is a clause, saying that if budget is not passed, I am not responsibility

-helps understand the layout of the interaction b/w gov’t/companies/3^rd groups

-they were very poor b/c they didn’t know how to live here – some of them died from starvation

-there were European consulates here in Israel with an emphasis on missionary work

-the jews who where there for messianic reasons thought that Mashiach will come in year 1840. the missionary groups helped the jews w/ $/food/health with the hope that their Jewish belief in massieh is similar in cause. àhelped them b/c it is the right xtian thing to do.

In 1840 when the massiah didn’t come, the xtians blamed the jews’ sins, so they increased missionm\ary activity. Also tension was on the increase.

-he helped out Shderot people when they were fired at. The political noise started when he made a political statement (I don’t want to be in Knesset is a political statement!)

-note: very rarely does social services begin w/ altruism – only done when there is a threat

-as soon as Gaydamek made political statement, the gov’t felt threatened by alternatives that step into their realm

-as part of its work, in 1830, they opened a “hospital” àfor poor people to live for a bit – for the poor to come for a bit to rest/eat/treatment of their diseases

-given that at that time, there was a lot of poverty, the need was great – the rich got treatment at home

-after 1840, the missionaries started b/c missionary (since the messiah didn’t come), the Jerusalem leadership of the Jews went against the missionaries – said Jews can’t use the missionary hospital.

-the poor ignored them! They had no alternative – then there was an argument b/w Jewish leadership and Rothschild – the leadership said that we need to give communal services instead of missionaries. Rothschild said that he’ll make one, but the leadership refused saying it was too grandiose. He ignored them and made the “Rothschild Hospital” – a body gave services that a person thought wasn’t enough so he made his own

-service was given by one system àanother system tried to rival themàprivate service rivals both

-the leadership wanted to make hospital not for health reason but b/c of political rivalry from missionaries – but Rothschild said he’s worried about health and blocked leadership from regaining power (besides, he was too modern and secular, so he’s an extra threat!)

-in 1777, when the 300 families came they had a great infl. on the Jewish population. They also brought on later Jewish aliya –the Jewish population started growing and changing. So the fund-raises went abroad more often to bring $. The diaspora Jews had enough of giving $ - they came by too often now!

“Pkidim/Amarkalim De-Amsterdam” – was established to coordinate the funding of the Kollels – the Jews in Israel made this organization so it will be easier to get $ - the Piku had to decide who got the $ - so the fundraiser phenomenon disappeared

-when the Jews came, they had associations for each communities’ people that made aliya. Naturally they first turned to their communities when they needed help (through fundraisers). Until Piku. When Piku came in, communities told it to allocate several % to the mother communities aliya people

-this is not a new thing – the European Jews were used to sending $ to Jewish in Israel to learn Tora – the change was that the immigrants didn’t see them as poor, but rather as Right to $ based on their learning of Torah (unlike older Jews) à”we are the forerunners of those who can’t come to Israel to learn Torah” àthus they saw the $ that was sent to them as wage àI have a right to ask for the $, since I am doing you a service by learning Torah- the main thrust was to bring the Messiah

-the Kollels had internal rule: “the Kollel members can’t do anything but study”

-the diaspora saw this $ as philanthropy – and thus wanted to dictate what to do with this $, yet Kollels claimed – don’t tell us what to do!

-at some point Piku started saying – we’ll give less $ to Kollels and more t/w other social things

-the kollels got a ‘kitzba’ - each kollel gave a nominal list of who learns there, and everyone got the same amount regardless of h.m. you learnt. The only things that made difference is the child # àbeginning of universalistic approach?!?

Katan – Gov’t social policies – political- historical development

Liberal

protect individual rights/freedoms
against gov’t involvements in social projects
individual needs to worry about himself
gov’t social involvement is bad – takes away personal responsibility over their lot
gov’t doesn’t have right to decide on questions like what is best for person
besides, social spending = more taxes from workers =less motivation to work and invest
free market is best b/c it will develop the economy and thus help people
if anything, family/volunteer/community should help
when in need, gov’t will help, but minimally, as not to harm the aforementioned principles
some claim: liberal gov’t obviously needs to give basic public stuff (i.e. school/protection) -->that is why US schools are so well-developed

social democrats

gov’t responsible for social welfare/rights
personal needs as social needs/humanitization of capitalization (i.e. health services -->freedom for poor is meaningless
no negation of capitalism --> just undo its harm

other approaches:

etzioni: -community approach: increase local community’s strength and involvement –not liberal nor social-democratic. Communal group solidarity should help the individual’s problems
conservative: similar to liberal, but specifically wants to strengthen family to serve as supporters of needs (vs. gov’t)
communism: claims that you can’t do any good with capitalism

-->thus you have no ownership! Gov’t owns everything and helps all of society

post-modernism: values are subjective – question, perhaps so is social equality values? Similar to community approach, but it can’t accept concepts like solidarity

developmental stages of social services state:

-4 stages – central stages, but not relating to specific states

genesis: 19^th century-->WW2: liberalism w/ beginning of soc. democratic:

basic income supplement

pension plan in Germany
beginning of social security in US

-->gov’t controlled and run

-->limited encompassing , dependent on budget

factors for gov’t involvement: b/c of:

worker union/social democratic parties
economic depression of late 20s

-so there is some departure from liberalism t/w social democracy

-liberal claim: we have to do that in desperate situations

-because of social pressure, the liberals b/c more left -->they wanted gov’t stability

WWII-2^nd half of 70s

-in most social service countries – social democrats -->increase in social services (and taxes)

reasons for unity after WWII

feeling: gotta help the people’s problems – especially those who fought for the country, who we neglected their needs

-->i.e. Lord Beverage was appointed by a mix conservative-liberal-social democratic gov’t in WWII – 1942, sets up a new system in England:

Lord Beverage said:

minimum income
increase in social services
etc…

increase in social democratic parties in the world
reaction to communism –so the gov’ts wanted to show that socialism and capitalism works (i.e. communist parties came up whole over)
high income after war – country could afford it – especially b/c of the low aged population
countries felt that they could solve social problems

stopping/slowing down: 80s-90s

less gov’t spending
less social laws
more selectivity
more non-gov’t agencies
privatization
move gov’t’s social services to local gov’t

-->liberalism goes up –their claim is “more social spending, less economic growth!”

-->it seems that social services didn’t get the poor better

-->too much bureaucracy

-->people in charge help themselves anf not the needy population

neo-liberal

gov’t can’t fix problems but community agencies can! – and gov’t aid gets people lazy

-unions weren’t able to convince their claim of social capitalism

question: how is social services maintained despite the criticism?

fierce outcry against canceling social services
most people don’t want to harm the basic universal services, i.e.. health/school
gov’t fear public would disapprove their changes
high unemployment and economic slowdown

stage 4 new consensus – late 90s

less social spending

more integration of unemployed people in workforce
less universal social services
more insurance like (shift to focus on working population)
more privatization –to give people more options and less gov’t spending (i.e. less rely on the gov’t +competition lowers prices)

-difference b/w stage ¾ a=is that in $4, there are faster changes and population supports the changes

-after WWII –liberal leaned left – now the democrats lean right. Yet some things always stayed social – i.e. school/health

-with time, no canceling but definitely limiting social services

some causes:

globalization: caused gov’ts to want to reduce taxes so investors won’t invest elsewhere where taxes were reduced
less communism: les pressure to be socially oriented

-so despite reduction in social services, there is still a lingering awareness that gov’t has to contribute to social issues:

-->people fear economic uncertainty/social frustration

what is the direction in Israel?

-Israel is an exception – as others are cutting, Israel is still developing social services!

Israeli social services development:

national health insurance (to all Israeli society) –1995
siyud insurance – 1988 – there is selectivity but the filter is very lax
homemakers also get old stipends – 1995
kids stipends get universal
since 1985 – increase in real expenditure of social services

-nonetheless, the liberal movement does influence Israel

liberal influences in Israel:

increasing pressure to cut social progress -->usually doesn’t succeed but there is the pressure
outsourcing
services parallel to gov’t, i.e. private colleges/hospitals
selectivity of medical services/increase in pressure on unemployed to accept any job

Conclusion: the consensus in Israel blocks sweeping social cuts and reforms

Monikodam: “from grace to right – poor-helping services b/w the years 1905-48

-the development of our social services start b/w the ottoman and British systems

some started in the old yeshv – 1777 and 1905
other were built on later infrastructure- 1905-1948

welfare managers had to decide which unemployment reasons were legitimate and which were not

liberal: gotta rehabilitate

conservative: gotta give stern message to the unemployed to get back to work

in 1905-48, there are 4 competing approaches to welfare:

Torato umanuto – Torah is legitimate work and should be supported by the community
Work for your living – helping the poor is thus a grace thing. Unemployed is a failure
National-creative – rehabilitate the unemployed
Social security – gov’t will help in time of need

1905-48 – 44 years – huge growth in Jewish population –from 56,000 to 650,000

-m early 20s, Jews get functional autonomy -to run their affairs – in 1923, they can also collect tax for the poor! – the old yeshuv did not recognize the authoritative/ruling Jewish organizations in the British mandate. (BTW, the British encouraged the Jews’ autonomy)

first aliya: secular/worker/farmer/young/socialist
second aliya: urban/industrial/some are socialist, focus on farming and being industrial àfocus in not only supporting yourself but also building the Jewish homeland

àhaving their political ideas/organizations caused tension w/ old yeshuv (who thought of them as secular shitheads)

fourth aliya: urban/families/middle class/ small industries/free skilled workers
fifthe aliya: chaluzim+w/ nazism alo free traders from Germany à’new urban middle class’

organization b/w 1905-48

-were representative t/w British gov’t

voted assembly
communities
Zionist management
Union

Assembly: created in 1920 –general/relative vote by most Jews (except some from old yeshuv) àout of them was the national committee who’s is the enforcing body – by 1923, they had ruling status in yeshuv (given by British mandate)

Community (kehila): British mandate encouraged establishment of local ruling ‘communities’

-in 1928, the British set rules as to how local communities are subject to the national committee, who is subject to the British mandate – the old yeshuv did not recognize the Jewish autonomy

Zionist management in Israel: another organization – common to Jewish communities in Israel and abroad. Relatively rich. Spharadics and old yeshuv didn’t like this organization since they didn’t have representations. Later, the Spharadic got representation.

Worker union of Hebrew workers in Israel: unified all of former unions in Israel

-from 3^rd aliya, the workers take control over all the aforementioned bodies

-those organizations were based on new yeshuv and not old yehsuv

* old yeshuv: focus on industriousness/working for your $, and rehabilitation of unemployed, and services based on social security

Torato Umanuto vs. working for your living in old yeshuv:

-at first, they were all learning in Kollels and got $ from “Piku” – a Netherlands organization. They lived under the principle that learning torah is a necessary job, and as in any job, you have to be paid.

-with time, more and more old yeshuv people started working for their living (including some rabbis!), and piku also wanted to be more philanthropist and less kollel supporter.

àeven kollels b/c supporters of poor!

-by creation of state, the study for $ has almost disappeared (It was strong b/f the new yeshuv)

productionist approach in New yeshuv (i.e. work for $)

-WWI/1929 riots/great depression caused economic stress that had to unify foes (old+new yeshuv+ histadrut (worker’s union)

old/new yeshuv fight

WWI – Europe is at war, so $ is no longer coming in from there.

US send $ -though claimed they’re helping everyone equally, their focused is on productionist approach – gave $ first to those families in war, and then to advancement of industry. Old yeshuv is angry – they want $ to go to everyone, not just production-focused people. So the old yeshuv quit the joint venture

-some joint programs did take place nonetheless. I.e. subsidized Galilee food products given to urbans, including urban-old yeshuv peoples.

disagreement b/w worker’s groups and rest of new yeshuv

-various productionist organizations had 3 main realms of differences

helping the poor vs. helping productionism
helping all of yeshuv vs. just the workers
management/working style

-criticism over management in light of crisis caused the national committee to create a department for social work

preoductionist/rehabilitation of the social work of the national committee

-wanted to have an overseeing body top deal with all the social organizations

Henrietta Szold – established Hadassah in US – thought the support should be production-bound

-she did think that help should be universal – i.e. not only to the members of the worker’s party

-problem: local communities just got power 2 years prior and are just trying to get themselves organized. There were also traditional helping programs working already.

-yet, the local communities trying to build themselves up have issues collecting taxes, so they don’t have much $.

-since $ income was unstable, the social worker organization could only help labily depending on $ situation.

-eventually mandate gov’t gave $ for soldiers’ families – so then they had constant income.

Nonetheless, social worker organization was only partial since it didn’t cover the work of other philanthropic organizations and union’s social services. (They did send $ to union to cover some of their social expenses).

-the SW organization basically helped those not covered by other organizations

social security view of Union (Histadrut)

-the haluzim of 2^nd aliya hated needy of philanthropy view

-if there is an unemployed, the focus should be on the fact that he is primarily a worker and should only (in principle) get $ from the union. If he has to, it is ok that he gets help from non-union organizations, since he is a ‘worker’ – and contributes more to society than a non-working-in-essence unemployed person.

-the union was involved in setting the stage for State of Israel laws

-union b/c the answer for un-working worker whereas SW department is for non-worker unemployed. àMapai – unemployment help is necessary as a national responsibility

-Histadrut had services for members and their family (i.e. medical centers, stipends for unemployed members/survivors of death of a worker (member of Histadrut)

summery:

-in the 43 years b/w 1905 and 1948, there was a shift in the services for the poor:

poverty is a social issue and not an individual’s problem
support is also by right and not only by grace àgotta support those who can’t work
duality b/w poor who worker’s poor and non-working poor
sometimes, the boundaries were crossed – i.e. Paku helping people not studying torah; Hadassah/Woman’s organization also helping Union workers; SE department of National committee helping all the sectors and the agriculture people helping the urban and the old-Yeshuv
T/w the creation of the State, there were several approaches:

Torato-Umanuto – lost it’s legitimacy in eyes of most of the public

Work for pay (in old/new yeshuv) -helping the poor is helping someone who failed in profit-making/philanthropist view
National creative/rehabilitative of the national committee: gotta help people get back to work if they can and in essence only support those who can’t work
Social security approach: related only to workers and their families: helped them in emergencies w/ a known/constant amount (in relation to the general quality of life) àbased on mutuality b/w workers

-the new change common to the national-rehabilitative approach of the national committee and BTL was the relating to the poor as a legitimate (yet unwanted) phenomenon. the state of being poor allows for national help regardless of work history/capacity. The difference b/w national committee and BTL us their relating to work: BTL only help those who worked in the past, yet anyone can go to get help in the Lishka, and get help (in light of his situation/ability to earn) regardless of having worked in the past

Ideological purity vs. pragmatic considerations in the development o social welfare in Israel –Monnickendam

-2 main political groupings in Israel

socialist left
capitalistic right

-Israel’s welfare is result of strife b/w the 2 approaches

-yet sometimes they would (pragmatically) implement similar policies in power

-2 parts of the article: historical development of Israeli Social services until 1948 and second part will show how both sides restrain, yet foster development into a westernized welfare state

Israel is multiparty/parliamentary democracy/coalition gov’ts

-Israel had wide-ranging social insurance programs run uner National Insurance Institute

old-age/survivor insurance
long-term care benefits
disability benefits
rehabilitation benefits
income support benefits
alimony
child allowances (for 2^nd child and beyond)
maternity benefits
employment/accident injury benefits
injury of terrorist benefits
reserve military pay benefits
unemployment benefits
employee benefits (in case of corporate bankruptcy)
legal aid

-personal social services funded by gov’t +public/private non-profit organizations

àservices in local social services bureau – funded by gov’t

ànon-profit orgs., like Hadassah/AMIT has things like hospitals/women’s shelters/etc…

-gov’t subsidizes price of basic commodities like food/transportation

-in beginning of 20^th century, influx of Jews to Israel. B/f that, all Jews in Israel base their lives on philanthropy (b/c they study Torah). Those new Jews were socialist and believed in self-sustaining (part of Herzel’s idea of creating a national community). Work is of the essence. Productive/organizational frameworks started popping up. This group was a minority but their influence was wide-ranging

-they created self-help organizations like Kupat Holim (joint medical organization)àthey turned inwards for help b/c of solidarity workers ideology but because of parochial (limited group) necessity àgetting help from the workers’ organizations required membership init.

-in 1919, British take over Palestine, and with it, the Jews establish work union (Histadrut). They were involved in things beyond a regular workers union
(social/cultural)

i.e.

land settlements
work contracts
absorption of immigrants
promotion of Hebrew language
vocational training
public work
unemployment relief
social assistance
medical services
housing
banking
youth organizations
theatre
unemployment/welfare/disability benefits

-there were not only a worker’s union but also Hevrat Ovdim (worker’s commonwealth)

-It was economically self-sustaining

-only members had say/got benefits

-was internally politicized

-you couldn’t get the Histadrut services by just paying for them – you had to be part of the right party as well as member.

-so other unions (i.e. manufactures union) made alternate social services for their industries

-by the 20s, there was a fairly coherent/centralized political leadership w/I the framework of British mandate – the Jews thought that they needed to be as close to a state as possible (mamlachtiyut) –they had the national council (ruling body) and Jewish agency (brings funds from Diaspora

-the National council had dictated that local social services be established who would deliver services in a universalism approach (unlike labor unions). Henrietta Szold is considered the foremost establisher of the local social services and held the universalist approach, vs. the labor unions who only wanted to support the productive members of the society. (by the way, the national council gave funds through the political parties to those who were eligible)

goals of local social services was:

care of the family
constructive treatment (i.e. food/clothing/help finding work

-the local social services were meant to coordinate and supervise the independent social work organizations (i.e. helping those not covered by them)

so, until state was created: 2 separate systems: one for the labor affiliated and one for the orthodox/non-working populations. The labors rejected attempts to nationalize health system, as well as other services provided by the labor union

-only local social services were universalist.

-until 1984, the populace wanted to strengthen the labor union, so for that pragmatic reason (of self-preservation), there was 2 systems. The egalitarian socialist ideology did not take over until 1984!

-the Histadrut/national councils criteria were now taken on by the state. Those solialist values conflicted w/ the capitalist oriented private sector.

Ben-Gurion: state has to cover the support of those not affiliated and supported by the socialist groups.

Particularism vs. mamlachti

The period b/w 1948 and 1977:

-there was an agreement that state should only cover what was not offered by other.

-the pattern was that whenever Histadrut got power by what it offered which the state didn’t, the state wanted it and the Histadrut didn’t want to let go of it

àeach side wanted to keep to itself what it had (so it gets more political power)

-eventually, mamlachti approach won out as embodies by national insurance law – gov’t b/c bureaucratic on the oppositions

-the gov’t didn’t really want to help its social services – they passed a law in 1956 “social Welfare Act” which had no teeth since there was no budget assigned to it w/i the law, so every year, social service people had to negotiate w/ treasurer

àthe main thrust was that when building a country, you can’t have people dependent on you!

Until 1977

Labor portfolio included BTL was given to a laborite
Social portfolio (selective approach) given to weak party

-so mamlachti was carried out as long as partisan interests were not carried out

1977-1984

-in 1977, the right takes power (after labor rule the country since 1948)

àw/ time, voters b/c more conservative

-but, unlike US/Britian, Menachem Begin was not seen as a conservative interested in downplaying social services. Rather it was a reaction to the hegemony of labor party.

àBegin was also a socialist – he promised and really did stuff (poor neighborhood rebuilding –“project renewal”)

-1977 - Natioanl Insurance institute and ministry of welfare were united.

-income maintetance componant of Social Welfare act was moved to BTL, thus not under scrutiny of Minister of Finance.

àmove t/w mamlachti, which was more laborite, yet Likud did this for pragmatic reasons

1984-88

coalition gov’t – Begin couldn’t maintain power

-inflation is high, so w/ Histadrut agreement, there was salary freezes/cuts in public/social spending, which helped curb the inflation

-concurrently, Israel b/c more capitalistic: less marginal tax/expansion of capital-based market/minimizing budget deficits/etc…

-since labor controlled finance ministry at this time, you can argue that it is at their hands that social cuts took place

the social spending:

cut in 1983-4
stabilized low level 1985-87
renewed growth –1988-89

-not including health/education/personal social services which were on the constant decline

-in 88, most growth was in income maintenance program, but in general, per-capita spending went down 10% in 1^st half of 80s

-ministry of Labor and social Affairs was to outsource to private sector with the assumption that they are cheaper/more private contributions

-the finance ministry gave in to this policy

-you would have thought that Likud would have liked this, but labor also likes this because then there’s a rise in income maintenance benefits

àboth pluralistic/mamlachti were combined, and for pragmatic ways, both sides were happy

1988 to present:

end of 80s: b/c of economy - reduction in funding for food/transport

-wanted to have school payments (Knesset rejects this)

-payment for first child (in families of up to 3 kids) was abolished

-labor run finance ministry sells of much of gov’t property

à:Histadrut is in big $ shit

-in line w/ those trends, gov’t outsources services to private sector (gov’t pays them for services)

àthose trends are from labor’s shimon Peres

-a once egalitarian society now has a pay inequality bigger than US

conclusion:

-with increase in quality of life, question is whether gov’t should continue social services

-selectivity is not only Likud but also laborites especially those in treasury ministry

-restrict social services cuts party lines àb/c of economic deterioration

àb/c of voter constrains, parties are not traditional in Israel – i.e. Likud is not only white-collar people but also poor working class. Labor people have matured w/ state of Israel into self-sustaining, well off.

-parties run not by ideology but by economic/historical trends

-conflict b/c socialist and capitalist/free market is exaggerated by Russian aliya

-so in the kollels, there was a shift from úåøúå àåîðåúå towards a individualistic, working society.

1) in those years, the kollel was intended for known Torah scholars (vs. the past where kollel was for all Torah Learning. There was no longer a learning society.

2) The kollel was known also for the poor – you needed a poor's pass. The poor pass was assigned by Beit-Din of that kollel. With this pass, he was exempt from head tax as well as welfare.

-by that time, kollel is no longer a way of living as it was 100 years beforehand

àdecision: everyone who studies in Kollel has to learn (vs. not allowed to work which was said until then – in practice, the change started beforehand

-from 1777, there were people who made Aliya privately (not organized groups). Those people usually came to cities, mostly Jerusalem. Those Jews also turned to the fundraisers to $ help. Those people are the main source of resource taking from Kollels.

-the old law was the most advanced in Europe in the sense that it was the first which on the state level, decided what o do with the poor – other countries didn't legislate anything about the poor.

-the old law said that the parish was in charge of the helping to his community. The new poor law was made b/c there was a new need. As a result of the industrial revolution, there were more poor. The previous mechanisms did not work anymore. Until now, the community (i.e. parish) had to worry about the poor. Only now did you have whole parishes are poor. Until then, you had parishes and there where rich and poor, and the rich supported the poor. The industrial revolution changed that and then you had paupers (people who walked around doing nothing – there was a demeaning tone to this term).

-the main point of this law was to control the poor, in the sense that they won't be a risk to society (i.e. and gov't)

-the law distinguished b/w the legitimately poor vs. the illegitimately poor. There is a matter of judgment here. The people with power decided which is legitimate and which is not. There is a matching b/w deciding who deserves help and moralistic thinking (this is still a religious society) àso when I help one and not the other, I have a right, since God made me richer and that means I have more say. i.e. my opinion is morally superior because I have resources (God gave it to me since he thinks its my right) and thus my decision has God's morality stamp on it!

-if I am a morally better person, then I have the right to educate him as to how to behave. (since I have the right way! – see: I have the resources)

-at this period, whoever doesn't work is deviant. Whoever doesn't work needs to work – we will set up "work-houses" for those people

-get a work-test, so we can see motivation for work – if he does want to work. The men were give heavy rocks to carry back and forth/women were given to undo and re-knit clothes. Thus they could see who had motivation to work (legitimate poor) and those who didn't have motivation to work (illegitimate poor)

-the handicapped were considered the abnormal – they were supported by society, remained poor, and the handicapped is a punishment for something. Thus the handicapped was a punishment, but there is still a need for support

Answer: in 1849, the first Kollel (Hod) turns to Montifiore to make a work-study place for the young.

-montifiore held strongly the working/productionist view. He was a banker/politician. He wanted to solve poverty in Israel with employment. He raised $ in England and brought it to Israel. He didn't trust the fundraisers -85% of his investments Israel was for productionist causes

-when the community in Israel didn't accept his productionist conditions. i.e. the old communities didn't want he productionist-geared education. So, Montifiori stopped the $. The fundraisers didn’t stop the $ when they had disagreements. In traditional view, philanthropy is unconditional. Montifiori thought otherwise.

-Montifiori knew the new work law in Britain. He tried to implement it in a moderate way in Israel. On this basis, he had many arguments with old yeshuv (i.e. around the woman's factory)

-used his own $. He was at constant conflict with old yeshuv. He forced many productionist views on them.

-there is some important things we need to know about his approach, since it influences us today.

-often, when town was going to go bankrupt, he bought them. His intention was not to profit from them, but rather as a temporary thing. The hope was when those towns were going to be viable again, he would give them autonomy again. He saw this as a borrowing act. Since he took responsibility for those towns, he forced those townspeople who worked for him to accept the following principle: I give knowledge – you give work. [kind of like he sweatshops]. He forced people to work/rest/marriage/when he can leave town/who enters it. Kind of totalitarian institution town. None of the towns ever b/c economically viable.

-Rothschild saw his helping as economic support. At certain point, he sold his support to a private company [of his family] àcriticism – this is people, not merchandise that you're selling!

* second Aliya: came for political reasons – were çìåöéí b/c they came to settle the country/ they were secular/idealists/socialists. They came here after pogroms, instead of most others who went to USA. They were poor, and didn't know how to live here, so most left. They still leaned from $ from Europe. They did not achieve economic independency. Some died from hunger. Until WWI, there was tension b/w new and old yeshuv about who gets the $ from abroad. The new yeshuv got less $

-$ sopped coming from Europe b/c of the war, but $ came from US. The jews who came from EE gave the $ to those who they new – new yeshuv/2^nd Aliya

-there was a discussion about where this $ should go. The agreement was that the $ should go to building the country:

-old yeshuv thought that you also need to help individuals. Most of the new yeshuv said: you can't help individuals, but building productionist things, i.e. factories, will eventually also help the individuals. Eventually the larger new yeshuv camp won out

-the 2^nd Aliya did not want to turn for help from abroad. They disagreed w/ those urban majority of New Yeshuv who did accept it. So they turned inwards, and created organizations that can support themselves in time of need. The group is internally and mutually responsible when one is in need. That’s how the term ÷åôú çåìéí is called what it is. At first, it wasn't a medical thing, but rather a fund for those who can't work [when they're sick] - they get sick funds. The ôåòìéí áéäåãä established them [group b/f the union]. The services are given on a membership basis. You needed to belong to a union group in order to survive, and it was on a membership level

-the Jews came here with set parties from abroad – huge politicl mess, so the productionist parties decided to unify that will help the settlement of Jews in Israel (especially after balfour declaration in 1916)

-So Ben Gurion decided that in order to unify such different groups: you pay membership to organization which moves $ upwards to central gov't. BG is scared that all those parties wil mess up the central gov't, so he said that all members will be part of the central union/gov't , so that if your specific party/union is in disagreement w/ central histadrut, then you are still member of central histadrut. Parties lose some power.

-the "red-notebook" is of the central histadrut. A person could not get services of Kupat Cholim if he was not a member of Histadrut. With time, there were many services given by Histadrut to members only.

-don't forget, you had to be member in order to get services. The implication is that if you're not a member, you don't get services àif you were not a worker [productive] you did not get the services. Even if you were an independent/bourgeois worker, you were not a member! –i.e. the doctors serving there was not part of histadrut! Vs. teachers who were considered productionist, so they did get membership in histadrut.

-we see a connection political views and $. [same as in kollel's time, where beliefs made you get services.

1931: the kollels are weak. The old yeshuv is weak vs. the new yeshuv/histadrut which are strong.

The åòã ìàåîé was the unification of all of Jews in Israel. Represented Jews to Mandate Gov't. they represented all – not just workers [i.e. old yeshuv/white collar people]. This body was above the Histadrut. They collected taxed and functioned like Knesset today. They had voting/bills/etc. they worked in the direction of representing everyone. It was established by some parties which got unified and got ruling status by the British Mandate. (it was established in the 1920s)

-in 1931, the central committee felt that welfare/social services are neglected ànot everyone was part of Histadrut! And there are different grass-root organizations working in chaos ways. So the do Social Work department in order to give services to those not covered by Histadrut. The social work department had 2 goals:

-in the 30s, there was a food shortage – lack of milk. So vaad leumi had discussion of giving milk to the kids. The question was which kids would get this daily cup of milk. There has a fight b/w vaad leumi and histadrut. Histadrut said: the milk has to go to worker's kids. Henrietta Szold, on the other hand, said that all kids gotta get this cup of milk. She take opposition to the notion that work=rights. She won out. Here is an expression of a mamlachti responsibility approach of the gov't

-last class, we spoke about the different components of social services. The strongest part was the histadrut part. They gave large amount of services, i.e. employment, health, welfare, etc… it was worth it to be in the histadrut, just for the services.

There was a question when social department was established by åòã ìàåîé: where should a person turn to when he needs help? And is there a connection b/w his affiliation and the places where he can turn. Those not in Histadrut got services by right of being part of yeshuv [kind of like citizenship] – except marginal group, everyone had right to services.

-but Histadrut members, in addition, also got more services [from the Histadrut]

-Hadassah gave services to everyone [classical capitalistic philanthropic approach – universal approach]. This is opposite from Socialist view of Histadrut – have to be working/members

-she was part of Mapai – working partner, but she went against their views! [i.e. milk to everyone]

-henrietta szold established the SW departments. She does this right after the Great Depression. åòã äìàåîé wants to make and organize SW department.

b/c there were many philanthropic initiatives, and they wanted to organize this.

-she did failed in unifying everything, but she did succeed in establishing SW umbrella organization. So you have the chaos of âî"çs and also municipal SW department

In great depression: many Histadrut people were unemployed, so they turned to Hadassah for help. Hadassah said: only for $ - b/c if you have membership in Histadrut, then you have $, and then you're not poor as you say. They turned to Hadassah b/c their services were better and more comprehensive that the Histadrut services. The problem: there was no unity in criteria for philanthropist organization. Shaarei tzedek has a criteria for discounts. They ask the rabbis of old yeshuv to check that your people are really poor. If not, we won't accept your claim that person X is poor. The claim was that the rabbis don't really check the guy's economic situation

-what characterized the Histadrut was productivity. Whomever wasn't a member id the building the country party, you were a minority. And if you were unemployed/or had problems then you weren't productionist and you weren't "fit". The problem was that problems did not spread across party memberships. i.e. handicapped/retarded

Histadrut – gave benefits to work accidents but not to birth defects – that was åòã ìàåîé's problem.

In creation of the state: what should we do with the histadrut's services? So they made BTL – this was supposed to replace histadrut's functions and make it universal. The principle of BTL at the time was that everyone is somehow relate to work. When you got kid benefit/unemployment were related to work. i.e. the kids benefit was called ÷öáú éìãéí òåáãéí

Socialism of the time b/c very limited – if you work, you are first rate. If you don't work, you are 2^nd rate. Sounds capitalistic. They held this very strongly, b/c at that time, they needed the productionism to build the country. [the capitalist and the socialist both focus on work, but socialist also has an element of membership of collective]

-the BTL finished establishing itself. Alongside it was the îùøã äñòã – it inherited the gaps in support-giving (i.e. b/c of municipal funding). The ñòã wanted to unify the standards of giving. The state treasury tried to stop this. So they succeed in doing so w/o the treasury's help. [by 1956]. The downside was that it was a low benefit. It was so low that you had to realize that you can't live off of it. There was a huge gap b/w BTL's benefits and ñòã's benefits. (i.e. if you were a worker, you had decent benefits for whatever problem. If you weren't, then you were in bad shape]

-law said that people should get unified pay supplement benefit regardless of why you can't work. This broke the work norm that prevailed until then. But still, the ñòã is lower b/c it is from general tax, and BTL is higher b/c it is from worker's tax. Still, the difference b/w the fit and unfit is still around – i.e. BTL vs. øååçä

Social services in the law – picture of 4 cities in central Israel

-social services gives services to individual/families/groups

-help depends on budget set by social services ministry – chronic shortage of $

çå÷ ùåúé ñòã

Gives rules of general staff of òáåãä åøååçä\ (úò"ñ)

-doesn't give specific rights for benefits – just gives staff authority to decide who gets and who doesn't

Problem:

despite úòñ explicating criteria, there is still uncertainty if person X will get the benefit
Lack of standardization – b/c of gap b/c criteria and funding. Some departments even gave up certain services

89 -law to protect kids

88 –laws of ñòã departments of social service departments said to give old fogies

91 –law gives SW(ô÷éã ñòã) rights in violence estimation/court recommendations

àthose laws increased the budgetary constraints already set on Social Service departments

What are the personal services as given by the law?

-people who need protection: old/retarded/youth at risk

-law tells SW who and how to protect [including giving reports to courts!]

BTW, everything in Social Services in municipal except adoptions/civil/÷öéðú îáçï

Many ways to compare cities' social services:

carrying out services vs. # of files
how much budget
manpower and their overburden
trends in laws and their carrying out

mow much beyond their 25% share they give their social services departments
how much $ per resident of the city
how much $ per case
how is their $ allocated? For dealing with specific cases, or to other stuff [i.e. does this $ get to the people?] – so the $ for each case might be lower than just totaled budget divided, since the $ might not all go to he cases

how much they hire beyond the staff-amount allocated to them
likewise, how many cases there are to a worker [or social worker?\

carrying out the law:

ô÷éãé ñòã can

take youths at risk out of their homes
help courts come to conclusion about divorcee's kid's visitation
deal with violence at home on the immediate level

-gov't gives 138 new staff-positions to deal with the new laws, i.e. family violence centers/ô÷éãé ñòã

-after violence laws there was many new cases reported to social services, not because it was legal beforehand, but now the law gave new tools:

helping the legal system, including reporting/court-case initiation
help families treat and stop of violence

Structural differences in ô÷éãé ñòã:

Functional structure:

central/øéëåæé –is the violence department central/integrated into regional staff or is it is a special department [i.e. úçðä ìééòåõ îùôçä], which also works on a regional level

Uniqueness of staff:

does staff work only on violence laws or do they also have other therapeutic jobs in the system?

-also here, the questions should be asked:

how many reported cases are there
how many are there to each ô÷éã ñòã?
Proportion of court reports done compared to the population/population under 15
% of SW staff that are ô÷éãé ñòã

-another thing that ô÷éãé ñòã are supposed to do is find legal guardian for the helpless [i.e. old fogies/kids] and then they are supposed to follow up once legal guardian was found. They in practice almost never follow up, and also rarely do outreach to find the helpless, as they're supposed to do.

-state comptroller said; we need 7 inspector-posts and 60 SW to deal with this – but again, law didn't enforce this, so it wasn't done

Legal guardian issue

-despite law, courts ;ask SW to give opinion reports but not the b/f and after stages]

Before stage: checking appropriateness of the people around
Process stage: legally appointing the guardian
After stage: checking up

-also here despite recommendation of state comptroller, there was not law binding increase in SW staff, so the shortage doesn't allow this law to be fully carried out

-we can see prioritizing of laws by how much resources given o enacting of each law

Kids at risk:

-after 1991 law of kid protection, increase in reporting of kid abuse. This law is seen as high priority. Despite no increase in funding after the 1991 law, the municipalities saw it as utmost important and either added funding to the social department or they took positions from other fields for the kids at risk

Structure:

Some towns, the ô÷éã ñòã for youths in regional staff, and some, the youths department is a whole department onto itself [less burnout]

Number of ô÷éã ñòã staffing w/ increase in target population

-statistics bureau sets 15 as a point b/w old/young kids

- ways to differentiate b/w towns:

# of kids up to 15 per ô÷éã ñòã – especially after the 1991 ô÷éã ñòã law.
Frequency of sending kids to ô÷éã ñòã per 1000 kids up to 15 years old

àmore turning to ô÷éãú ñòã then you need more of them!

Frequency of sending kids to juvenile court per 1000 kids up to 15 years old

àalso here you need more ô÷éãú ñòã for more referrals

proportion of cases deal by ô÷éãú ñòã to court
cases per ô÷éãú ñòã
court cases per ô÷éãú ñòã

elderly

-law -1966 – said that all elderly not mentally/emotionally capable of taking care of himself – SW has to deal w/ it

-if family don't cooperate – SW can go to court [rarely happens]

-this law is not enforced so much

[have to work w/ BTL and health-system nurse]

-some services were developed instead – with the 1988 law

àeven b/c the dominant service of the personal services

Statistics show:

% of elderly cases is much higher than the % of SW assigned to them
Comparing b/w towns shows that elderly cases SW is constantly overworked - 200-360 cases per SW per year! Can't effectively work that way. Partial solution: volunteer organizations

Welfare state in light of new century – Katan

Central issues in development of social state:

Question:

what needs to be extent/field of social laws?
Should social services be universal or selective
What is the role of central/local gov't in the social services
What is the responsibility of voluntary/businesses?
What is the role of informal institutions like family in the whole thing?
What should be the link b/w work and income supplement?

Degree of social rulings

Assumption: social rights is part of civil rights

-nevertheless, there are differences in how much social ruling amongst the various social states

Israel's laws:

-some laws in social servicing:

some of education
income supplement/old/handicapped/unemployment/etc.
personal services, i.e. ñéòåã for old foggies

-other things don't have a law in Israel

housing
ñéòåãé hospitalization
Dentistry

-in US, medical services are not embedded in law

-despite lack of law, there are still stuff given [i.e. help in housing for large families, new immigrants/single parent families/oldies, support is old's institutionalization, retarded/handicapped institutions/kid's dormings/higher education

-the difference b/w law-embedded services and those not embedded in law is that gov't doesn't have to fund àit depends on political considerations – it is easier to cut them when needed

-law change is too hard – too many pressure groups [though there were cases where law has successfully changed regarding social services

Supporters of social law claim:

-social services are a civil right

Objectors of embedding social services into aw claim:

-gov't involvement is bad/harmful, since it increases dependency and harms the economy

Other objector to law claims

laws are universally binding and services and the services are not necessarily for all
limits SW's flexibility in fitting services to unique needs of each case
gets low standards/encompassment
problem: when some services are embedded in law and others aren't, then there is gov't preference to those embedded in law, and those services aren't necessarily the important ones àif anything, have everything embedded into law1

note: the arguments for laws are also those used against it

selective vs. universal services: big debate

Selective

universal

Focus on poor – even test means/income/savings

No means testing

Liberal

-gov't limits access via evaluations of income/means.

-gov't is only seen as a security net for emergencies

-gov't doesn't restrict access

-gov't is seen as provider of rights. This view is seen in some things, like education/social security/health/housing

Coined residual model of social services

Coined institutional model of social services

Seen in services like:

housing
income supplement
housing help
ñéòåãé hospitalization

Seen in services like:

schools
health
some of income support services
kids/old support

Claims:

gov't needs to reduce involvement and only help the needy – no need to help everyone – not giving to all makes better quality of giving to needy
economically unviable –universal laws of services make more tax – makes economy less attractive
makes people more dependent and not independent
universal laws don't allow for specifity of services, depending on needs

Claims:

social services is a civil right and not a benevolence
will make poor's services bad quality/taxpayer won't want to support those services anyhow

-by the way, some universal services, the public won't agree to reduce, i.e. schools/old benefits. But the public tends to want to reduce selective services, i.e. unemployment

making income standard below which people will get the services – encourage people on the border to work less and get the benefits – will be more worthy for them to work less!
Selective approach will give people stigma ("I am officially poor") – lowers SE, estrangement from mainstream society
Means testing is expensive to develop

-some claims have been substantiated:

stigma issue makes the people even avoid the selective services
selective services ge cut faster

àtherefore, can't claim that selective approach improves quality of service to the more needy

Central vs. decentralized social services:

-different social countries have diff. levels of centralized or decentralization of services

4 expressions of the level of centralization:

comprehensive federal social laws
gov't's resource availability and expenditure
activity levels of the gov't bodies
inspection mechanisms

-different countries = different divisions b/w central and local division

-Israel is mostly central. Examples: ÷åô"ç: gov't decides what shall be given and outsource it to ÷åô"ç/with social services, central gov't sets standards and local branches just enforce it

Downside of centrality:

Comes at expense of local specialty, [as seen in education/health/etc.]

-with time, there is some local organizations who do manage to influence local services, but this is minor as opposed to gov't's influence

Upside of centrality:

Allows unity of services/good at enacting the laws

Localism support claims:

local organizations know best what is needed on the local level and thus can give more fitting services
supporting local initiatives – helps local organizations be more involved and coordinated. The central approach reduces motivation of local organizations to initiate local programs
makes social services more accessible t public

àcommunitarians: seeing the more fitting needs of the local gov't. centrality approach I associated with free-market approach of letting person be responsible for his own fate

-with time, most social services countries b/c more decentralized in their services and give more power to local organizations

Democracy for the people? Social policy in Israel – yael yishai

-Israel is a modern social state. It has obligated to give social rights

Problems:

short term
constant stream of immigrants

2 overriding approaches:

democracy is for the people
democracy is the people

2 laws discussed in this paper:

çå÷ áéèåç áøéàåú îîìëúé
çå÷ æëåéåú çåìä

Elitist

Pluralist

Democracy is for the people

Democracy is the people

-doesn’t consider people’s preference

Considers people’s preference through bottom-up organization

-sometimes lets organization join making a triangle of iron. But otherwise keep influence to themselves. Very little public influence

-many actors outside gov’t

-people’s preferences are considered

Gov’t initiates and dictates policy

Develops well in centralist gov’t

Develops well in capitalist gov’t

Important: he ruling approach dictates how much we’re gonna take into consider people’s preference

Claim of article: despite social changes in Israeli society, the expected pluralism didn’t creep up. This is b/c of basic values

Policy decisions:

çå÷ áéèåç áøéàåú îîìëúé

-makes gov’t sole provider of health

-BTL – takes the health tax

-gov’t decides what service is going to be given [ñì áøéàåú]

-everyone has to join a medical program – ÷åô"ç – of their choice

-Histadrut members were automatically Klalit members – now they were free to hoin othr ÷ïô"ç instead

Sick rights law çå÷ æëåéåú äçåìä\

-gives the sick right to informed consent/medical service

3 rights

universal medical treatment
informed consent
die respectably

-but if there is no consent, then the Ethics board can give consent with the claim that the guy would have given it retroactively

Analysis

-despite PR public, it was ment to solve a political problem

health ministry = weak

Histadrut =strong. And it controls Klalit (80% of public) and used it to draft strength to itself and labr

-young laborites/likud wanted to take away this strength institution from the old core of laborites

Gov’t wanted [heath minister]:

to settle the medical care by centralizing it/to get managerial power over health care to health ministry
riding system of Histadrut

-the law made no difference to the people – they’re still standing in line/low access to medical services/still bureaucracy [replaces one with another]

-so more social associations started springing up. Those organizations came up b/c of questions were unanswered by the law, i.e. what is reasonable wait for medical services/treatment quality/etc…

1992 àéâåã öøëðé áøéàåú

-this organization came up to unify many such organizations. Though this may be the beginning of social acting, but they were weak b/c

lacked $
Members lack resources b/c their were either sick or the family members taking care of the sick
Trouble splitting $ b./w specific cause and general cause
Bigger influence of the Histadrut [this organization’s offices were at Histadrut!

Sick rights law:

-the law claims to give rights to the sick but in reality, itjust gives ethic boards power over the sick – it just makes out kid of oligarchy

Social changes:

-quality of life is higher

-liberalization/privatization/decentralization of gov’t policies/agencies

Political changes

In the past

today

-political parties were also social parties – they gave you social services. They had income producing factories. They were totalitarian

no totalitarian party

Oligarchy of party chose public servants

92 move to elect both party and PM – less elitist/more pluralist

Collectivist society

No longer a collectivist society – today’s Israeli society is more individualistic as seen in less motivation to serve in combat

Fear: b/c of individualism, social services might collapse –i.e. less universalism and less funding to selective services. This is not a funding issue but an ideological issue

-Israel moved from a progressive social-democratic country to conservative capitalism

-collective ideals now seen as anachronisms. Thus the 2 laws emphasize less control in medical system and more individual [sick] rights

Main idea of article

-with those social/economic changes, we’d expect to see more pluralism, but this didn’t happen b/c of a basic value

Basic values:

-a basic value is defined as:

accepted in large proportion of population
no questioning of this value [b/c those who do don’t dare]
has historical roots in the society
is not specific to a subgroup, but is in common to many in the group

-In Israel, there is a basic value of the supremacy of the state

-despite turning to to society, Israeli gov’t always kept to upper hand of controlling policy

2 elements

paternalism –i.e. in education/health – had to be established at the expense of the individual – i.e. sick rights law seem to be for the sick but are rather gov’t control

collectivism: this ideal was set hard into the founders of Israel

in short, the gov’t shows “concern but no empathy” for the citizen

-laws are only verbal tax for the people’s concerns. This is b/c of the basic value of state’s supremacy

-not an insurance law – it comes from gov’t $ [though it comes from BTL, which acts as a secondary contractor. It is not like other things like of benefits which you pay through your life. This law is only law w/o budgetary limit

-when the state or other agent decides that he wants to give a service, there is a wide way to do so: he can:

Important: local municipals are not governmental –they just get the $ from the gov’t and act out the services.

-the services from the social services are generally given by non-governmental bodies the gov’t approach is to fund/inspect but not run.

-as said: BTL services are given with $ and social services are seen services

BTL –with time, they also developed seen services – old/handicapped. Social services was angry b/c they thought it was our problem!

Exception: çå÷ äñéòåãé – defined as both insurance $/services model law. First of all, there is an element of insurance, since BTL collects $ also for ñéòåãé fund. The law says that the person doesn’t get the $ back as a regular insurance. Rather, he gets service instead of $. In this sense, it is an exception – it in an insurance law that is gotten as a service and not $ - b/c the people here are dependents and need to be protected – thy are not in a situation where we can expect them to go use their $ to get services. Question; can we trust kids of the old fogie with the $? Law said no. in this exception case, gov’t has contract w/ agencies. Each case is weighed with a committee that includes BTL and Social services. If the old personal doesn’t get approved, BTL doesn’t pay

-by and large, all these social laws are pretty functional and stable. Even the cuts that occasionally took place did not collapse the systems – shows their stability. The system in Israel is pretty good on international standards

-in personal social services, the budget is pretty much stable over the years. The budget does not relate to new needs – thus we would expect increase in budget for the social services [i.e. Aliya/alcoholism/violence]. 34% of the personal social services budget goes to old benefits! This is a huge %! We must not forget that behind the old people are all of the Israeli society [their kids are everyone!]. vs. special populations which have must less broad support

-this means to prefer one group over another in a specific field. For example, with abused women, I prefer to give services to haredi than to non-haredi group. I prefer to give more $ to peripheries than to center. In short – I prefer to help a specific group. [I give one at expense of the other]. This happens b/c of political priorities. Not in the party sense, but in the socio-political sense of different pressure groups w/I society/

-obviously, categorical focus is easier – there are clear [objective] criteria – less need for testing criteria

-there is tension b/w the need to help the special individual, and the equality of the larger group

-in practice getting the benefits vs. benefits theoretically being there but it is inaccessible

-n BTL, only 70% get their benefits, and not b/c they don’t come, but that the policy lingo of BTL is so convoluted. This is also on the ô÷éãéí level – they don’t know al the convolutions in order to give the benefit to the person. They might think that the client doesn’t deserve it while the client really does. This is part on any big bureaucratic system. Lawyers do now this –that is their jobs. Sometimes, lawyers also come to BTL!

Note: -there is a gap b/w the politician/law-maker and the people in the field.

For example: if gov’t decides to increase the income of single moms. But the politicians intentions is to improve those people’s quality of life. The people in the field who have to operationally translate it. The politicians said something general. The gov’t gives $X million to it, but don’t give specifics. The people in the field, translate this into practice and this doesn’t necessarily work out according to the politician’s intentions.

->for example: clerk has right despite rules to give benefit in practice. They interpret the law. Thus, the clerk’s interpretation makes or breaks the benefit.

Tendency: the clerks tend to say no when in doubt. It is easier this way – they act stringently in times of doubt. This tendency increases in-application of the benefit despite politicians’ intention to do so.

-the policy of the specific branch of social services also influences the benefit giving in practice. For example, how much the Social services branch manages itself influences how much/good services that they give

-there is a difference b/w interest organizations that try to change the system from w/I the system (i.e. interest associations) vs. others who try to change the whole system (–i.e. objection groups)

àthe changing from w/I works better – too hard to change a whole system the to advance your cause from w/I it.

Macro: we need to realize that all $ we achieve to get for our achievement comes at the expose of others’ àthis is an ethical dilemma

-only objective groups in Israel that did work was the black panthers who did succeed in bringing structural change to the social services to the weaker

-so, up to now, we spoke about various ethical dilemmas: clerks/bureaucracy/advocating one vs. another issue

-basic values of the state allows us to understand the phenomenon of gov’t helping only when feeling threatening

- from the 30’s, the unemployed were seen as bad – the social welfare office was always given to the weaker party

-those organizations seem to be anti-establishment, but in practice they work together

çå÷ ñòã-every city has to make social services department. The problem is that the law does not define what exactly that means [which services were to be included

-statutory law: law says that BTL is besides budget: i.e. old/kids/-in supplementary income, if person passes test, he gets the $ àthose are exceptions – the rest is just a matter budget

-the law says what to do but not that it is compulsory to do so à thus none can come and claim that they didn’t get the services

-now –the treasury doesn’t want to give any more blank checks, since the old people benefits got 12 times more people than predicted

-among others, said that the Social services are municipal. The federal gov’t may be funding it, but the municipal is the enactor.

So gov’t decides: the “normative” gets $ from gov’t [as seen in BTL = meant for the worker] – vs. the “non-normative” –i.e. non-worker/wife-beater/criminal àas a state, we’re not gonna take responsibility for those people

-since the gov’t did not take responsibility, the real meaning is tat: gov’t is not responsible for equality and thus the gov’t can decide which things to fund, according to its own will.

For example: Tel-Aviv gets much less $ b/c it is richer. Yeruham gets almost 100% of its social budget. The gov’t can play with this. The catch is like this: Tel-Aviv has better services none-the-less, since those central cities do have that budget to override the gov’t’s funding. Tel aviv also has an independent Arnona and Social Services get $ from this

-in the last few [say 10] years, the enactment branch, in the localities are beginning to change: the local gov’t gives the $ to òîåúåú to run services for municipalities

Warning: the municipality gives the $ to various associations, but when you come to get services in the city, you don’t know who you’re working against – the association/city workers are both in the city’s building

-the question is what the role of the parliament/peoples/court in the social system?

àquestions like that could be dealt with in various places, i.e. in the populace/parliaments or in courts

-teacher’s opinion: must be discussed in populace/parliament. Public needs to be involved. In the past, Histadrut represented the people’s voices. In the 80s, it weakened a lot. So the public had a hard time expressing himself. The democratic mechanism of Israel still works [parliament]

-problem: the Knesset avoided several issues, i.e. avoid Shabbat issues – the Knesset tries not to take a side. Then Supreme court comes along and said that everything is juridical [i.e. Judge Barak of the Israeli supreme court] = - if parliament doesn’t say something, we will! – juridical activism

Result: when hot issues came to court, politicians tried to get out of the issue, they sent them to courts

-what was once a political channel for people to influence [i.e. protests/pressures] are now not a “political” thing, but rather a court thing

Emphasis: no tricky questions – don’t read beyond question – some questions are formulated not good

Mediniyut Vesherutim - Policy and Social Services

Kinds of actions

Asiya shlilit : specifically not doing something

Q) at which places do SW mediniyut take place?

Government

Economic claim:

Expansionism of Social welfares

Social service widening

Bismarck: the German chancellor that unifies Germany (until today, it is a federation)

BTL

Liberal

Monikodam: “from grace to right – poor-helping services b/w the years 1905-48

-the development of our social services start b/w the ottoman and British systems

Particularism vs. mamlachti

Until 1977