Challenges of Social Security and Protection

Social security and protection is a part of the political and economic life, which is obvious and clearly understood by all without exceptions: politicians, experts and ordinary people. The outcomes of social policies directly affect the lives of every individual and it seems that almost everyone is qualified to assess, criticize and make suggestions in this area. This apparent simplicity and accessibility makes the understanding of the scope of social security the most popular subject of political bargaining and speculation. It is emphasized in the course of an election campaign and criticized by competitors and, above all - social security and protection are the most common criteria for comparing different periods in the life of a country and for evaluation of governmental programmes.

However despite such visible and concrete manifestation of understandability, expert analysis usually affects only one or several interrelated segments of this broad scope. One may track and analyze the status and dynamics of pensions, social protection of children or the disabled, to note the improvement or deterioration of the survival conditions of certain groups, the dynamics of the number and size of benefits, etc. At the same time, behind precision and deep study of certain issues integrity and systematic approach to organization of the entire social sphere is often lost.

While talking about the principles and ways of improvement of the social security system one should keep in mind what stands behind the needs, responsibility and human rights. Our way of thinking influences the ways of addressing specific manifestations of social security, identifying real systemic problems or temporary difficulties and complexities. Views on human nature, human rights and limits of freedom and responsibility form the principles of social policy and social standards. For instance, should they be described and designed using economic and material categories, i.e. the number of square meters, beds, roads, lamps, etc., or using legal and humanitarian categories, i.e. accessibility, awareness, etc. The mechanisms of social protection also vary: either the distribution of benefits in accordance with a fixed list, or ensuring the provision of needs within existing rights.

Belarus today follows the first strategy, i.e. it prioritizes the economic indicators, a fixed set of requirements that have to be met, etc. The issues of humanitarian and legal support, such as psychological integration, overcoming marginality, legal equality, etc. are not a priority and serve as a complement to the "compulsory" social package programme. However to understand the situation better one should look at the problem of social welfare at the level of organization of the entire system.

Principle of differentiation social security. First of all, for analysis purposes, the groups of population should be identified that differ depending on the degree of access to social benefits. The first group combines people who are in a position to secure the necessary range of social services independently, that is, they have the opportunity to earn the required amount of money and pay for services provided.

The second group combines people who are not capable to secure the same standard and generally accepted package of social services by themselves. First of all it concerns people with limited physical or mental capabilities (disabled); secondly, people whose opportunities are limited by age (children and the elderly); people who represent marginalized social minority and those who do not have full political and social rights, i.e. migrant workers, people with unconventional sexual orientation, etc.; people with temporarily limited social opportunities - pregnant and nursing mothers, the unemployed, students, young professionals, people freed from their places of detention, graduates of special boarding schools, retired military servants, etc.

Thus, social security concerns all citizens. Therefore social packages should be divided into general (services and social benefits accessible to all citizens without exception,) and special or specialized services (for specifically targeted assistance that can not be obtained independently and on a general basis, by virtue of certain restrictions).

Such separation of population in two groups and related social packages sets up certain requirements for the organization of social work, in particular, the requirements to collect information on various categories of the population in the second group, the requirements to ensure the adequacy and targeted approach, etc. The main point is that the identification of the first group assumes that the base line for the establishment of social welfare infrastructure of choice of social services meets the needs of those who are capable to secure it independently. Only in the case of limited capacity, this restriction should be overcome via special measures.

 What challenges Belarus faces while implementing this approach to social protection and security.

 Issue of statistics. Belarus has not yet established a working system of identifying and accounting groups, who are in need of targeted assistance. The task of gathering statistical information is pined onto social security departments however they can only use the existing scheme of collecting information. The problems lie in the general organization and principles:

• Poorly designed nomenclature (the list) of the categories of the population requiring targeted assistance. It has remained virtually unchanged since the Soviet times. As a result, great attention is paid to "benefits" based on ideological principle (veterans of various wars and labour, officials of enforcement agencies, special services, etc.), as well as benefits for people with limited physical and mental abilities. However regarding benefits for people with temporary restriction of social opportunities and those socially isolated (the unemployed, migrant, homeless, etc.) there is no proper classification. Inherited from the Soviet times, groups such as Gypsies living in abandoned villages are simply not a subject to accounting. There are no relevant statistical categories concerning these groups.

• The available statistical information is collected by different departments and each of them develops its own categories and criteria, based on the narrow objectives. Interdepartmental consistency regarding the comparability of statistical information is missing. As a result, it is very difficult to use and to share the information, let alone to mention the harmonization of actions and activities.

• Trainings for officials in the areas of statistics are most frequently limited to training on basic skills related to controlling numbers and some forms of statistical reports and spreadsheets. Low wages contribute to the corresponding low-skilled specialists.

• Virtually no interaction between the governmental bodies and relevant organizations of the third sector exists regarding collecting and analyzing statistical information. It is due to the fact that such cooperation has neither the organizational forms that would take into account the information and help the third sector to correlate it towards government’s accountability, nor will and desire to expand such cooperation.

• In general, poorly designed and poorly differentiated system of statistical indicators is complemented by fitting of existing numbers in compliance with the ideological and political requirements. The need to justify market solutions to people's needs requires bringing "objective picture" in line with the decisions.

• There are territorial, infrastructural and social constraints and difficulties in the process of collecting the necessary information. Since certain rural areas are simply difficult to reach, the data collected in their regard is "approximate". It is even more difficult to obtain reliable information on socially isolated groups.

Departments of Social Welfare are not capable to solve the aforementioned issues and while using the existing schemes and methods of work, they are not coping with their task of collecting the necessary information properly.

Awareness issue of those who could qualify for social assistance. Despite the popularity and relevance of the topic of social security in the rhetoric of leaders of different levels, the range of issues covered de facto is very narrow. More often it concerns evaluation of social policies, while little attention is paid to awareness regarding the rights related to social security. There is a small range of issues of social security, which is at least highlighted quite regularly: first of all, pensions and child allowances. However, a wide range of issues, in particular, related a standard package of social security, remains virtually closed to those who should enjoy them. This applies, for example, to various aspects of security and protection concerning free medical care and patient rights (choice of doctor, the opportunity to appeal medical decisions, the right to appeal in court, etc.) or free legal assistance.

As a part of the problem, on one hand, the information related to the rights guaranteed by the state is locked in at the level of those agencies, which are intended to implement them. On the other hand, there is an obvious lack of technical and professional opportunities of the bodies providing social services regarding raising awareness, disseminating information about themselves, and about the services they provide. They lack the skills and capabilities in dissemination of information, as this requires special development in the field of advertising, PR and special experience in setting up these activities. However it is not within the competence of the staff and social services are not included into the organizational structure. As a result, those who wish to exercise their rights to social protection or to receive targeted assistance should take up the initiative (often accompanied by persistence and perseverance) in extracting information related to their rights and opportunities guaranteed by the government.

Issue of availability of social services and benefits. Even the existing rights to social protection guaranteed by the state are far from realization. Availability of social security is limited by a number of difficulties:

• Social welfare bodies have a permanent deficit of personnel required to meet the needs of social protection. Low salary of social workers with enough of hard work has resulted in qualified personnel leaving the public service. It is staffed with people with low qualifications, who often regard their position as a temporary place of work. As a result, the staff of social welfare agencies do not meet the demands of the population, both in terms of numbers, and qualifications, which also limits the availability of social protection.

• The regulatory framework, which sets up framework for the provision of social services, is so complicated and cumbersome that it is not understood by those who need social assistance, and also by the social workers themselves. They do not always adequately understand their own responsibilities and opportunities.

• The division of labour and distribution of responsibilities within the social welfare bodies is built on the basis of ensuring convenience for monitoring and reporting to superiors, rather than on the convenience of receiving customer service. This distribution of responsibilities and powers between the officials and employees of social welfare bodies makes it impossible to find a specific person responsible for the entire process of assistance or services provided. The introduction of the principle of "Single Window", which was designed to resolve the issue, could not solve the issue. The reform has not affected the process of the provision of services, but only the form of "communication with the customer". Regardless of the fact that people communicate with one official, the decision-making process regarding the issue is dispersed, therefore no single official bears personal responsibility.

• The sphere of social security is still considered by the state as a system of distribution, where the state grants benefits to its citizens. It is the state who decides and provides solutions to social problems (frequently rather limited). There is a lack of client-oriented technologies and ways of provision of social services. This way paternalistic relations and dependence on the state is maintained. Those who seek their own ways to exercise the existing rights and opportunities, the government officials consider almost as con artists. For example, when non-governmental organizations dealing with persons with disabilities become self-sustained, it causes mistrust and special biased attitude from the side of public authorities.

• There is complete lack of coherence and coordination between the public social welfare bodies and the third sector (NGOs and socially-oriented business). Despite of limited state’s own resources to be spent on social welfare, the possibilities offered by non-state actors are not taken into account. Moreover, they are often subjected to pressure. Thus, the provision of benefits to associations and enterprises employing people with disabilities is done to a limited number of organizations. It concerns mainly those organizations that were created and exist with the support of the government. Self-sustainability on this matter is not considered. Furthermore, this list of these organizations is identified by law and is virtually not subject to revision. As a result, the activities of social welfare associations, are not included in the nationwide programme of social security, and in addition hampered by various trials, and sometimes have to struggle with the state for their survival.

The issue of coherence of social services and the needs. The primary issue here relates to possible conversion of benefits from natural (services) in a monetary form of expression. The existing social security system does not imply ownership rights to receive benefits: a person is not free to chose the form of obtaining them. Thus, according to the state budget and the Constitution every child is guaranteed a certain funds to be spent on education. In Europe , a similar amount tied to the identity of the child, and it is transferred to the school where the child goes. In case parents are not happy with the proposed public schools and the child is sent to a private school, the child’s funds are transferred to child’s account. In Belarus , these funds may be transferred to public educational institutions only. As a result, child's family pays full tuition fees in private school, rather than the extra cost difference. The cost of such education is very high. In fact, this means restricting the rights of a child. There is no right to social security when the needs to not correspond to the proposed forms of benefits.

The same issues concern the area of free healthcare, and in providing drugs, wheelchairs and cars for people with disabilities. The discount is either offered in a standard format, or not granted at all. There is no choice regarding the form of the provide benefits.

Another aspect of the problem is related to the adequacy of the opportunity to use benefits. For instance, it is the most obvious in the case of free public transport for the disabled. Since the whole infrastructure is not suitable for persons with disabilities, the free of charge traveling becomes ‘virtual’ and can not be benefited from. At the same time, there is not opportunity to convert this benefit into other forms of benefits.

Issue of corruption. In the absence of a developed system of public awareness on social welfare services, with low functional literacy, the sphere of distribution of social services provides a fertile ground for corruption. The most affected area concerns soft loans to housing (construction and purchase), making these services inaccessible for the majority of people from the group which is entitled to these benefits. Also, these services are enjoyed by those who can forge documents proving their right to receive concession loans. The same applies to the practice of allocating land distribution dacha plots, etc.

In recent years, the problem of corruption was widely spread in the area of higher education. The coexistence of paid and free higher education provokes corruption regarding admission to universities. Public bodies have been developed and special programmes were implemented to prevent this negative phenomenon. For example, the introduction of the testing system allowed excluding the subjectivity of teachers. However the possibility to manipulate with the number of free seats is left to the discretion of high schools as well as identifying the passing score. Institutional commission may provide an opportunity for certain students to study for free given seats available in free groups. Those seats become the subject of corruptive practices. In the end, the right to education still can not be fully realized.

Issue of full state control of social welfare services. Despite of the lack of funds, skills and other resources, the state is not searching for an opportunity to liaise with the social welfare associations, and in reverse, imposes pressure on them in every possible way. All social programs implemented within the framework of public associations, do not fall into neither statistics, nor planning follow up action. The only mechanism of interaction is the interception of initiatives and results and displacement of non-governmental associations. The same happens in the framework of international programs related to social protection. The place of civic associations is occupied by public services, or so-called public associations.

Solutions to the mentioned above problems requires radical revision of ways and forms of social services and social protection. The possibility for such changes depends, strangely enough, not so much on the economic and material conditions, but on our perception of a man and his needs. Changing paternalistic principle of providing social services with the principle of the establishment of appropriate infrastructure to meet one’s needs is only possible in case of the inversion of the existing relations "Man vs State". It mostly relates to development and dissemination of new ideas regarding social standards, quality and lifestyles of people. This is a task for scientists, philosophers and intellectuals. The last but not the least is the training of new personnel for the system of social protection and welfare, crucial to make the reform possible.

Belarus is named ‘a social state’ in the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus . In a sense, this corresponds to reality. Most of the people in Belarus can benefit from social services and realize their potential, only due to the fact that the whole package of services is provided exclusively by the state, and that all social opportunities are controlled by the state. However the contemporary Belarusian State is inefficient. It can not implement all the social programs, which it declared and does not create conditions for the independent solutions to social concerns by citizens. Therefore, the social standards in Belarus are seriously underestimated.

Vladimir Matskevich, [email protected]

Tatiana Vodolazhskaya, [email protected]