Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

ILC Future of Ageing 2022 - Prof. Louise Haagh.pptx

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 17 Ad

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

ILC Future of Ageing 2022 - Prof. Louise Haagh.pptx

  1. 1. ECONOMIC SECURITY FROM A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE – Prof. Louise Haagh – University of York FUTURE OF AGEING 2022 – A VISION FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS International longevity centre, London November 24th 2022
  2. 2.  Institutional challenges & opportunities for reform.  Improving social protection design is linked with other challenges  Enhancing occupational investment / stability along with rethinking design of social protection  holistic approach needed FOCUS: Systemic Perspective On Social And Economic Protection Systems Through The Life Course.
  3. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS – Inauguration of new WHO Department For Social Determinants Of Health POLICY COHERENCE AND OVERSIGHT FOR HEALTH WHO as Health Auditor – good and bad policy designs Agenda – Good Governance for Health – build new architecture Multi-level global governance for health – governance coherence for health Louise Haagh, Key-note inaugural at the foundation of the Department for Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organisation, led session on “Welfare state innovation: universal basic income and services”, Geneva, 12th September 2019  https://www.who.int/social_determinants/strategic-meeting/en/ 2019, Louise Haagh and Barbara Rohregger, Universal basic income policies and their potential for addressing health inequities, World Health Organisation, 2019, June. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/404387/20190606-h1015-ubi-policies- en.pdf?ua=1
  4. 4. CHARACTERI STICS Universal…………..it is given to all people in society Permanent………..on a long-term basis Periodic……………..regular transfer Unconditional……without any strings attached Individual…………..money is given on an individual basis SIMILAR PROPOSALS IN THE UK: The Weekly National Allowance. New Economics Foundation. £50 per week, for anyone earning less than 125.000K. Use existing benefit spending and the personal tax allowance. Incorporates some components of UBI UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME - components THE UK’s INCOME SECURITY SYSTEM HAS DESIGN DEFICITS - Does not cater to all groups – no effective wage-linked component - Exclusively reliant on central tax finance (in Denmark nearly 2/3 of income support is from contributory –wage-linked system) - Not (effectively) aligned with education or occupational planning / mediation - employment transitions are not skills-led NEW CHALENGES - SOCIAL PROTECTION DESIGN
  5. 5. 2007 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION LOW Spending in GDP HIGH HIGH TRAINING and other active measures Spending in GDP LOW S. Korea Sweden Denmark Austria US Finland Portugal Australia Spain Elaborated from OECD 2011 Ireland New Zealand Italy Hungary Germany Holland Norway France Canada Belgium Czech R. Japan x. Percentage of GDP spent on public benefit administration and placement services, 2007. Y. Training, employment incentives, supported employment and rehabilitation, direct job creation, start-up incentives, spending in GDP 2007. Chile UK Poland Source: Haagh, L. 2019 The Developmental Social Contract and Basic Income in Denmark, Social Policy and Society, Cambridge University Press, 18, (2), OECD COUNTRY SPEND ON BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION TRAINING – PRE- 2007/8 FINANCIAL CRISIS
  6. 6. 2014 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 HIGH TRAINING and other active measures Spending in GDP LOW S. Korea Sweden Denmark Austria US Finland Portugal Australia Spain Elaborated from OECD 2016 Ireland New Zealand Italy Hungary Germany Holland Norway France Canada Belgium Japan x. Percentage of GDP spent on public benefit administration and placement services, 2014. Y. Training, employment incentives, supported employment and rehabilitation, direct job creation, start-up incentives, spending in GDP 2014. Slovak Rep. Chile Poland BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION LOW Spending in GDP HIGH Source: Haagh, L. 2019 The Developmental Social Contract and Basic Income in Denmark, Social Policy and Society, Cambridge University Press, 18, (2), OECD COUNTRY SPEND ON BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION TRAINING – ADJUSTMENT
  7. 7. THE UK’S SPENDING CHALLENGE DENMARK 1980. 2015. Change %. %. % Family. 2.74. 3.44. + 26 Health. 5.08. 6.67 + 31 Housing. 0.37. 0.70. + 89 Incap. 4.09. 4.01. - 8 Old Age 7.84. 10.23 + 30 Other* 3.70 1.47. - 60 Survivor 0.14. 2.02. + 1,387 Unemp.. 0. 0. 0. ALMP. 0.11. 2.05 + 1.700 UNITED KINGDOM 1980. 2015. Change %. %. % Family 2.18 3.47 + 60 Health. 4.41. 7.70 + 75 Housing. 0.13. 1.53 + 1,090 Incap. 0.95 1.85 + 96 Old Age 3.99 6.53 + 64 Other 0.6 0.1 - 83 Survivor 1.66 0.05 - 97 Unemp.. 1.15 0.17 - 85 ALMP. 0.51. 0.19 - 64 OECD 1980. 2015. Change %. %. % Family. 1.44 1.97. + 37 Health. 4.09. 5.31 + 30 Housing. 0.21. 0.32 + 55 Incap. 2.12 1.93 - 9 Old Age 4.84 7.03 + 45 Other 0.37 0.49 + 32 Survivor 0.97 0.86 - 9 Unemp.. 0.59 0.68 + 15 ALMP. 0.23. 0.44. + 96 Denmark U.K. OECD KEY POINTS: 1. U.K spending is transfer heavy: family, pensions, housing, relative to active labour market policies. 2. Some of this is due to lack of capacity and inequitable (reliance of costly agency staff in some sectors of health and low-paid staff in other sectors). 3. Some spend subsidizes private sector provision (housing).
  8. 8. __________________ __________________ __________________ ____ ______________________ ________________ 0 0 O 0 () IIIIII IIIIIIIII I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I _I_I__I_I_I_I__I_I _I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I __I__ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII ________________ __ The two purple diamonds add to Korpi and Palme, 1998 – The Paradox of Redistribution, American Sociological Review, 1998), p.667 Targeted Basic Security Voluntary state subsidized Encompassing Corporatist I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I( )_I_(_)_( _) )_I_I_I_(_)II_I_I_I _I_I_I_I_I_I_I_I_(_ )I_I_I_I_I_I_I Encompassing + BI Voluntary Encompassing + BI Incorporation systems Sources Haagh, L. 2019 , ‘The Developmental Social Contract and Basic Income in Denmark, Social Policy and Society, Cambridge University Press, 18, (2), pp. 301-317. Targeted UK’S DESIGN CHALLENGE – CASE OF INCOME SECURITY
  9. 9. NEXT 25 YEARS..? THREE PATHWAYS TO LIFE COURSE ECONOMIC SECURITY  RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE 1. CONSOLIDATE MINIMUM INCOME SECURITY: UNIVERSAL FLOOR and TOP-UP 2. BUILD LIFE-LONG CONTRIBUTORY SYSTEMS (PENSIONS – COMPULSORY? / UNEMPLOYMNT – VOLUNTARY? Multi-source funding for care. 3. MAKING TREND-SETTING (PUBLIC) OCCUPATIONS more OCCUPATIONAL (Through a combined investment –regulatory approach)
  10. 10. END
  11. 11. THE UK’S TAX CHALLENGE
  12. 12. MULTIVARIATE DEVELOPMENTAL SOURCES OF INTRINSIC WORK MOTIVATION, SÃO PAULO Source: L. HAAGH, World Development: Working- Life, Well-Being and Welfare Reform, 2011, Volume 39, Issue 3, March 2011, Pages 450-473. 11 PROPOSITION: Modern states need to mimic the multivariate security structure that currently only those best able to compete through schooling and labour market systems are able to attain. Individuals motivated to work by combinations of opportunity and economic security - UK does not have effective wage-linked security
  13. 13. CANADA 1970S: GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME FIELD EXPERIMENT: HOSPITALIZATION RATE, 8.5 % DECLINE BETWEEN 1974-1978, MENTAL HEALTH A MAJOR COMPONENT 16 Source: The Town with No Poverty: The Health Effects of a Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income Field Experiment, Evelyn L. Forget, Canadian Public Policy – vol. xxxvii, no. 3 2011 EVIDENCE OF HEALTH IMPACT of Guaranteed Annual Income
  14. 14. EXPERIMENTATION SET IN CONTEXT OF L-TERM REFORM FOR POLICY COHERENCE Local/national experiments should: 1. Align closely with health stakeholders in monitoring, experiment design 2. Define health broadly as well-being, incl. in relational terms A. Focus on impacts of economic and positional stability B. Use a multi-factorial frame when evaluating impacts of diff. sources of econ. security and opp. 3. Ensure to use multiple constituencies/districts – not exclusively income assistance recipients Louise Haagh WHO 2019 c – not to be reproduced
  15. 15. BASIC INCOME – WHAT IS IT?  “A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.” BIEN (Basic Income Earth Network - http://basicincome.org/)  Life-long, permanent basic security structure  At stake: reach & terms of income security, supporting other systems (education, occupation), creating different incentives HOW SHALL WE THINK ABOUT IT? * An alternative foundation for the architecture of income security to the one we have 1. From periodic intervention to constitutive stability in health and social policy 2. Address persistent old and new design flaws in the welfare state 3. Providing a basis for policy coherence for human development Part of a case for humanist justice and governance, based on evidence we have that permanent basic income security could be a constituent and a part of a stable institutional architecture of human development WHY IS BASIC INCOME ON THE AGENDA? Louise Haagh WHO 2019 c – not to be reproduced
  16. 16. LEVELS OF HEALTH IMPACT OF BASIC INCOME Individual Level: Mental health, Supporting Intrinsic motivation, sense of security/control, empowerment Systemic Society Level: Generating a foundation for comprehensive economic security system, senses of belonging, security in society, inclusion and social participation, and accountability, build/rebuild universal welfare state Policy Level: Lowering public sector costs linked with poverty/insecurity to the health sector, supporting preventative health interventions, impact more direct but not confined to the lower part of the gradient only (proportional and universal effect) Limitations: These effects are conditional on other change in the policy environment (fiscal capability/political preferences, economic policy) Louise Haagh WHO 2019 c – not to be reproduced
  17. 17. EXPERIMENTATION SET IN CONTEXT OF L-TERM REFORM FOR POLICY COHERENCE Local/national experiments should: 1. Align closely with health stakeholders in monitoring, experiment design 2. Define health broadly as well-being, incl. in relational terms A. Focus on impacts of economic and positional stability B. Use a multi-factorial frame when evaluating impacts of diff. sources of econ. security and opp. 3. Ensure to use multiple constituencies/districts – not exclusively income assistance recipients Louise Haagh WHO 2019 c – not to be reproduced

×