sign in sign up
<<
Home , Social services

Routledge Revivals

Social in Socialist

First published in 1992, this book analyses social welfare in eight socialist countries, at that time: Czechoslovakia, , Cuba, Hun- gary, , Yugoslavia, North and the Soviet Union. For each it considers the ideological framework underlying the social welfare system and describes the historical development of both the system and the political and socio-economic context. Each chapter looks at the structure and administration of the systems in place and how these are financed. This is followed by a consideration of the nature of different parts of the welfare system, a survey of social secur- ity, personal social services and the treatment of the following key target groups: the aged; those with and handicaps; children and ; disadvantaged ; the unemployed; and the sick and injured. Each chapter concludes with an assessment of the effectiveness of the system considered. This page intentionally left blank Social Welfare in Socialist Countries

Edited by John Dixon and David Macarov First published in 1992 by Routledge This edition first published in 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1992 John Dixon and David Macarov

The right of John Dixon and David Macarov to be identified as editor of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 91023873

ISBN 13: 978-1-138-94713-9 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-1-315-67025-6 (ebk) Social welfare in socialist countries

Edited by John Dixon and David Macarov First published 1992 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and by Routledge a division of Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 © 1992 John Dixon and David Macarov Typeset in Times by Michael Mepham, Frome, Somerset Printed and bound in Great Britain by Mackays of Chatham PLC, Chatham, Kent All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Social welfare in socialist countries. - (Comparative social welfare) I. Dixon, John, 1942- II. Macarov, David III. Series 361.65091717 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Social welfare in socialist countries / edited by John Dixon and David Macarov. p. cm. - (Comparative social welfare series) Includes index. 1. Public welfare—, Eastern. 2. Public welfare—Communist countries. I. Dixon, John E. II. Macarov, David. III. Series. HV238.S63 1992 361.9171'7—dc20 91-23873 CIP ISBN 0-415-07150-X Contents

Contributors vi Preface vii Acknowledgements xii 1 Social welfare under 1 John Dixon and Hyung Shik Kim 2 China 10 John Dixon 3 Cuba 47 Carmelo Mesa-Lago and Sergio G. Roca 4 Czechoslovakia 75 Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 5 98 Gabor Hegyesi, Anna Gondos and Èva Orsós 6 North Korea 131 Hyung Shik Kim 7 Poland 156 Ewa Les 8 Soviet Union 184 Aleksandr a Wiktorow 9 Yugoslavia 208 Miroslav Ruzica Appendices 235 Index 254 Contributors

John Dixon is Association Professor in and Executive Director of the David Syme Management Centre, Monash University, Canberra, . Anna Gondos is the President of Lares Co-operative, Budapest, Hungary. Gabor Hegyesi is a Lecturer in the Department of , Institute of and Social Policy, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary. Hyung Shik Kim is a Senior Lecturer in Human Services, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia. Ewa Les is Manager of the Social Workers’ Department, Institute of Social Policy, Faculty of Journalism and , Warsaw University, Poland. David Macarov is Emeritus Professor in at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, . Carmelo Mesa-Lago is a Distinguished Professor and Director of the Centre for Latin American Studies, University of Pittsburgh, USA. Eva Orsos is a Counsellor in Social Policy, House of Parliament, Budapest, Hungary. Miroslav Ruzica is a Professor in the Department of Behavioural Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA. Sergio G. Roca is a Professor of at Adelphi University, Garden City, USA. Aleksandra Wiktorow is a researcher at the Institute of Labour and Social Affairs, Poland. Preface

This is the latest volume in a series which compares social welfare systems throughout the world. As in the previous volumes, consistency was sought by asking the contributors to discuss the environment, including ideology and/or values, , and the political and socio-economic context: the structure, administration and financing of social welfare; specific target groups, of which six were suggested; and an assessment concerning adequacy and future probabilities. Beyond this, contributors were free to elucidate the social welfare programmes in their countries in their own way. For purposes of consistency, social welfare has been defined a priori as: the whole set of compulsory measures instituted to protect the and his or her against the consequences of an unavoidable inter­ ruption or serious diminution of the earned income disposable for the maintenance of a reasonable standard of living. (Rys 1966, p.242) Similarly, the personal social services were defined in advance as: distinguished from cash benefits; provided in response to recognised personal needs; requiring the assistance of qualified personnel. For purposes of consistency and simplicity, all monetary units are expressed in national currency units, and no attempt has been made to convert them into comparable units. The currency units for the countries included in this volume are: China : Yuan Cuba : Cuban Peso Czechoslovakia : Koruna Hungary : Forint North Korea : Won Poland : Zloty Soviet Union : Rouble Yugoslavia : Yugoslav Dinar viii Preface

The original proposed title for this book was SOCIAL WELFARE UNDER , but it quickly became evident to the editors that although there are countries which designate themselves as communist, and others as Marxist, and others - with the same intent - as People’s Republics, these differ widely in their forms, as well as in their ideologies. In any case, no country has attained the communist ideal: ownership of all means of production by the people, and the withering away of the state apparatus. Since many of these states - as the contributions in this volume will indicate - consider themselves socialist states, the working title was changed to SOCIAL WELFARE UNDER SOCIALISM. However, this title might be construed as containing an implicit bias - that socialism was something imposed on people, rather than chosen by them. Since this book is intended to describe, and not to evaluate, social welfare programmes, the final title chosen was SOCIAL WELFARE IN SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. This did not solve the problem of categorising some countries as socialist and others as not, but due to the inherent length limitations of the book, it was decided to concentrate on those countries which seem to be the clearest examples of socialist , in order to highlight similarities and dif­ ferences between them, and between them and other types of countries. Insofar as the social welfare aspect is concerned, this, too, proved a problem. Since economic determinism is one of the basic theories underlying communist thought, it was originally theorised that in a communist country, and even in socialist regimes, there would be no need for social welfare programmes as such, for social work, since economic equality would obviate the kinds of human problems felt to be characteristic of capitalist economies. In Israeli kibbutzim (the plural of kibbutz), for example- where the operating principle is ‘from each according to his [s/c] ability and to each according to his need’, thereby putting the kibbutz closer to the communist ideal than many socialist countries - there was neglect of, and often resistance to, social work activities for many years. Similarly, in the early history of many socialist countries there were only fragmentary services, or they were subsumed under other activities - family problems dealt with by judges, for example. Admitting that problems still existed was seen by some as denying the fundamental rationale of the philosophy. Indeed, one prospective contributor to this volume declined to participate, on the basis that ‘there are no social welfare programmes’ in his country. Increasingly, however, there has been recognition of the need for help with a wide range of human problems, and with it, the acceptance of government-sponsored social welfare programmes, both for specific popu­ lations, such as the aged and the unemployed; and for the general publ ic, such as children’s or family allowances, illness , and maternity benefits. With capitalist countries depending on individual initiative in the econ­ omy, and socialist countries based on centrally-planned economies, there has Preface ix nevertheless grown up a wide area of convergence insofar as social welfare programmes are concerned. There still exist, of course, areas of differences, and there are also differences in emphasis and in practice among the socialist countries. However, one of the striking aspects of the contributions in this volume is the basic similarity which each of these countries exhibits insofar as answering human needs is concerned. Some have greater financial resour­ ces - or are willing to commit more to social welfare needs - while others differ in structure; but concern for the human condition is a major factor in each of the countries represented in this volume. Equally striking is the emergence of two new phenomena in recent years, both of which presage greater need for social welfare and social work in the future. One of these is the lengthening of life expectancy, creating ever-larger proportions of the elderly in the society, with all that this entails in terms of needs. A second phenomenon is the continued existence of , whether overt or covert. Since, by definition, there can be no unemployment in a state controlled by workers, a number of definitional and structural artifices are used to deny or reduce the problem, just as they are used - for other reasons - in developed market economies. Thus, the Hungarian con­ tribution speaks of ‘within-wall’ unemployment, while the Polish paper mentions ‘overemployment’. North Korea maintains the old-fashioned view that the unemployed are mere malingerers, while China for years refused to recognise the unsolved problem of finding jobs for school leavers, although some of them were out of work for five years. In the final analysis, however, socialist countries suffer from an unemployment problem just as do de­ veloped market economies, and the establishment of unemployment social welfare programmes is an admission of the intractability and continuity of this problem. On the other hand, some problems which seem permanent and growing in the Western industrialised countries - that of changing family structures, for example - do not emerge in this volume with the same degree of valence. Rising divorce rates, coupled with very high remarriage rates, resulting in complex family relationships, is hardly mentioned. Similarly, the entrance of a growing number of women - particularly wives and mothers of small children - into the labour force, now typical in the West, gets scant mention here, nor does the major shift to a service society which dominates other economies. Finally, there is little mention of the growth of part-time and temporary work, on the one hand; or the growing problem of substance abuse which occupies much of the centre stage for social welfare and social work in some countries. It may be that the latter problems exist, but were not mentioned in the contributions reproduced here. However, since the contributors were invited as well-known experts in their fields, it is probable that there are great x Preface

similarities between social welfare in socialist countries and those in other types of societies, as well as striking differences. In view of recent events in Eastern Europe, it should be noted that preparing a book based on material drawn from various countries is a time-consuming process. From the time of the decision to publish to the actual appearance of the book, three years or more may pass - years spent in locating experts, acquiring their contributions, revising and re-revising, and physically preparing the book. This book is no exception. However, the years during which the present volume was in preparation were momentous years, encompassing peaceable revolutions in many of the countries represented herein - in fact, all of the countries with the exception of China, North Korea and Cuba. The political changes which took place presented a challenge to the editors, since all of the contributions were received before the changes took place, thus making it possible that the social welfare systems described at the time of writing would no longer correspond with reality by the time of publication. Consequently, the deadline for contributions to this volume was advanced by almost a year, and contributors were urged to revise their articles in light of the new situation. Many of the revised chapters received were, indeed, different from the originals. However, in many cases much of the difference involved simply jettisoning material - articles which had explained at length the political background of the various countries, the history and role of the Communist Party, praise for the system and apologia for shortcomings shed these obviously ‘required’ facets and became more straightforward explana­ tions of the welfare system. In fact, in one case material which was being dispatched in the form of a few unrelated pages at a time, replete with minutiae of Communist Party meetings and resolutions, resolved itself into a coherent article, devoid of the voluminous historical and ideological material in the original. In addition to the revisions requested and received, the authors in the countries affected by major political changes were asked to add a description of the most recent situations to their articles. Finally, each author was asked to respond to a three-part questionnaire, at the last moment. The questionnaire asked directly: • What changes in the social welfare system have taken place as a result of recent political changes? • What changes in the social welfare system are now in the process of being planned and/or implemented? • What changes in the social welfare system do you confidently expect to see within the next five years? The most striking aspect of the revised articles and the responses to the questionnaire was the lack of change in the welfare system which has so far taken place, or are now being planned, despite the deep-rooted changes which Preface xi

have taken place in the political systems of several of the countries included herein. One explanation for such non-changes is that systemic changes take much longer than do political ones, especially in countries noted for layers of unresponsive bureaucrats. However, the contributors to this volume were in a position to assess professed policy, as well as results, and envisioned no great changes in most programmes. Another possibility arises from the fact that the grievances which gave rise to political changes did not, by and large, concern themselves with social welfare provisions as such. The desires for more personal freedom, for more voice in elections, for more consumer goods, etc., were not couched in terms which demanded changes in the social welfare system - or, at least, not so far. In other words, social welfare might have been of only peripheral interest to those demanding changes, and perhaps to the population as a whole. Consequently, changes in the social welfare system were not seen as a priority area. From this arises the complementary possibility that the programmes already in place served their purposes so well that no major changes were seen as necessary - or, again, not by those not in need of such programmes. Finally, it might be that the situations which place populations at risk - old-age, work injury, children, working mothers, the handicapped, illness, etc. - remain the same despite political structures, and require substantially the same measures in terms of social welfare. The latter possibility seems strengthened by the fact that the existence of universal entitlement programmes appears basically the same in developing and developed countries, in the centrally-planned economies and in the free-market models, in the Middle East and in China. The programmes differ in details, and in the economic capability of the country to provide such programmes, but in every country - as evidenced by previous books in this series - the same populations-at-risk are recognised and dealt with, insofar as social welfare is concerned. With the political changes taking place, particularly in Eastern Europe; the abatement of the Cold War; the advent of the European Community; and increasing concern everywhere for global problems, such as the ecology, the universality of human problems, regardless of political systems, may become clearer, and these volumes on social welfare programmes, of which this is the latest, might make it possible for countries to learn from each other concerning the most efficient and efficacious methods of facing such problems.

REFERENCE Rys, V. (1966), ‘Comparative Studies in Social Security: Problems and Perspectives’, Bulletin of the International Social Security Association , 19, 7-8 (July-Aug), 242-68. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all our contributors for their enthusiastic support of this volume. They met our deadlines and, with extremely good humour, accepted our pedantic queries and editorial liberties. To Mrs Cheryl Leeton go our thanks for typing the manuscript in its various drafts and in its final form. Publication of this book, indeed the entire comparative series, would not be possible without the support received from the International Fellowship for Social and Economic Development Inc. (IFSED), a non-profit organisa­ tion. Further information about IFSED can be obtained from the Director, IFSED, PO Box 228, Belconnen, ACT, 2616, Australia. To our wives, Tina and Freida, go our thanks for putting up with our idiosyncrasies throughout the preparation of this manuscript. For any errors of fact and for all opinions and interpretations, the authors and the editors accept responsibility. John Dixon and David Macarov 1 Social welfare under socialism

John Dixon and Hyung Shik Kim

Every welfare system is underpinned by a value system that provides the basis upon which choices are made: who gets what welfare support, for how long, and under what conditions. What this means, of course, is that understanding a particular welfare system requires an appreciation of the ideological context within which it exists. Ideology may be defined as a set of beliefs, true or false, verifiable or unverifiable, that are accepted as true by a group because it performs social functions for that group. This ‘unacknowledged dogma’ provides group members with insights into the process by which the collectivity has evolved and the goals to which they are collectively oriented. Ideology is thus a pattern of beliefs that purport to explain complex social phenomena, with a view to directing and simplifying sociopolitical choices confronting both and the collective. It involves the interaction of ideas and beha­ viour around a shared set of ethical values.

Socialism and communism: the theory Marx conceived two stages of social development towards the creation of an ideal society. Socialism is the transitional stage from capitalism to communism. This would follow the inevitable socialist revolution, which would see, eventually, the obliteration of the vestiges of capitalism. The reigning distributive principle is: ‘from each according to ability, to each according to labour’. Socialism thus represents only a partial negation of capitalism, for it recognises through the reward structure the contributions to society made by individuals. In the words of Pinker (1980, p.161): Thus we arrive at what is for our purpose a central welfare tenet of Marxist social theory. Under socialism - the first stage - it would still be necessary ‘to calculate with the cold heartedness of a Shylock’ the relative worth of each man’s work and reward him accordingly. Beneath this ‘narrow 2 Social welfare under socialism

horizon of bourgeois right’ a hierarchy of differential rewards and privilege would continue to exist, reflecting the unequal endowment of human beings. The role of the state would be to ensure that at least this condition of ‘formal equality’ was preserved through ‘the strictest control ... of the measures of labour and the measure of consumption’. Egalitarianism and socialism are thus incompatible. During the socialist stage of social development individual income differentials reflect differential labour contributions. Thus they act as an incentive for greater work effort and higher personal income, but it is envisaged that they will eventually be eliminated. To seek income equality prematurely would, according to socialist dogma, postpone or even totally frustrate the achievement of communism. The eternal hope is that with affluence will come equality, but the link between them is, at best, tenuous. Marx’s cosmology envisaged, ultimately, an egalitarian future society - one in which every member would have an equal share in the future’s abundance and an equal opportunity to contribute to that prosperity. This transfigured society, according to Yudin (196-, pp.7-8): ... is most of all distinguished by its high level of development of the productive forces, by the soundness of its material and technical bases. Relations of production are more mature here [than under its harbinger, socialism]... the class division in society disappears with the withering away of the distinction between the working class, the peasant and the intellectuals. This is inseparably bound up with the elimination of the important distinctions between mental and physical labor. Labor becomes a prime necessity of all members of society and the socialist principle of distribution according to work gives way to the communist principle of distribution according to need. This leads to the eradication of all remnants of inequality based on property.

Socialist welfare philosophy The basis of socialist welfare philosophy is the premise that it is in the best interests of society to alleviate and to assist those unable to care for themselves, by increasing production rather than by embarking on a protective policy of income redistribution. It is incrementalist rather than redistributive in form, one that requires welfare support to expand only as production expands and involves no radical vertical redistribution of income or diversion of resources from more immediately productive uses. Welfare support, then, is provided in a way that neither inhibits economic development nor frustrates the consolidation of socialism by fostering a sense of welfare dependency that could corrupt revolutionary zeal. Social welfare under socialism 3

Under socialism, economic and welfare systems are intimately connected. On the one hand the welfare system acts as a safety net to cope with the inevitable ‘diswelfares’ of economic development and change, especially occupational accidents and , family disintegration and separation, and youth unemployment. On the other hand, the welfare system is designed to promote economic development. It allows the continuance of a low wages policy, thereby maximising the investment rate by providing low income earners with supplementary welfare support. Moreover, in the eloquent and apt words of the Commissar of Labour in the USSR in the late 1920s, it is: a weapon in the struggle to attach workers to their enterprises and strike hard at loafers, malingerers, and disorganizes of work. (quotation Navarro 1976, p.42) Thus welfare policy is firmly grafted to work incentive policy, where it plays an important role not only in promoting labour discipline but also by encouraging the growth of labour productivity. This intimacy between welfare and work incentive policies does not, however, necessarily invalidate the socialist argument that social welfare benefits are a gift from the state, ‘a genuine act of governmental benevolence, a true manifestation of socialist ’ (Rimlinger 1971, p.254). This implies, of course, that socialist governments steer the distribution of resour­ ces towards those most in need, notwithstanding the overriding consideration of the work principle (Deacon 1983, p.39). Under socialism, social welfare is thus both an expression of state pater­ nalism, of worker solidarity, and an instrument for the promotion of economic development and the consolidation of socialism. Finding the appropriate balance between these two, often competing, pressures is the bane of socialist governments.

SOCIAL SECURITY UNDER SOCIALISM Marx said very little about the nature of society that would blossom from the ruins of capitalism. In regard to social welfare, his only observations related to social security. He rather simplistically envisaged (1970, p.31) there would be: a fund for people unable to work, etc. in short for what today comes under so-called poor relief. How this fund was to be financed or administered was left to the imagination of his disciples. Indeed, it was Lenin who first articulated the guiding principle of social security under socialism (see George and Manning 1980, P-33): 4 Social welfare under socialism

• that it should provide assistance in the event of , accidents, illness or death of breadwinner, as well as maternity and birth benefits; • that it should cover all wage earners and their families; • that all its costs should be covered by employers and the state; and • that its administration should be territorially based, rather than according to risk, and under the full management of insured workers.

It is clear that Lenin’s conceptualisation of social security was strongly and positively influenced by early European experience with . Stalin made two Machiavellian contributions to socialist social security principles. Firstly, he fused social security with work incentives, by relating the provisions of social security support to an applicant’s past employment record, work performance and work attitude. Secondly, Stalin made political and ideological conformity a prerequisite for the receipt of social security. Under the guidance of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, social security has become a legitimate device for the promotion of economic development and the consolidation of socialism. It may be likened to putting a patchstatus on the quo in the pious hope that an ideal society will ultimately emerge, as a matter of dialectical inevitability. Thus socialist social security has become a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist perspective on social security holds certain propositions to be sacrosanct (see Dixon 1986). Firstly, social security is an integral part of a socialist society and is a practical manifestation of class solidarity (see Rimlinger 1971, p.255). Secondly, non-contributory social security is a fundamental right of all loyal and hard-working socialists and their families. Thirdly, social security should not have the intention of equalising the earnings of those who make different work contributions; that would be contrary to the socialist distribution principle. Rather, as Mikul’shii (1975, p.40) has noted, social security benefits should, indeed: promote the resolution of the problem of securing the more consistent observance of the principle of distribution according to labour. They serve as the main instrument that makes it possible to combine the policy of preserving, or if necessary, somewhat increasing wage differentiation, depending on the quantity and quality of labour, while reducing such discrepancies in per capita income levels of families that are caused by differences in the ratio of workers to dependants in the family. Thus social security under socialism has the legitimate role of reinforcing and even widening existing income inequalities. Fourthly, social security should not be made available to anyone capable of self-support through work. To provide supplementary assistance to low income earners or to pledge support for those overtaken by a misfortune beyond their control is to foster Social welfare under socialism 5

the work spirit. To support the employable unemployed would be to deter them from working. The plight of the unemployable - the halt, the lame and the blind - has become a cause of consternation for those conditioned by the thoughts of Marx, Lenin and Stalin; when work is seen as the panacea for man’s intransigent welfare maladies, what of those unable to work? The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist perspective on social secutity has also introduced a number of new dimensions to social security practices in the twentieth century. Firstly, socialist trade unions have been given a significant role in social security administration, ostensibly to implement Lenin’s call for workers’ management of social security, but, in the Stalinist tradition, also to promote labour discipline and productivity by directly relating the receipt of social security benefits to work history, performance and attitude, which would not have been possible with a more remote bureaucratic form of administration. Secondly, individual eligibility for social security is deter­ mined in part by the political attitudes and activities of the applicant. Preferential and special social security treatment is given to those who work to consolidate socialism - trade unionists and model workers - while those ‘deprived of political or civil rights’ - political dissidents and non-confor­ mists - are proscribed. Thirdly, both individual eligibility and the benefits provided are commonly influenced by past work (see George and Manning 1980, pp.39-40). Eligibility sometimes requires the satisfaction of an employment test in the form of a minimum aggregate employment period, a minimum period of continuous employment, or even a minimum period of continuous employment with the same enterprise. Benefit rates payable sometimes vary directly with the recipient’s aggregate or continuous employ­ ment period. The Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist social security legacy has been to develop a social insurance variant. (The lack of a clear distinction between ‘em­ ployers’ and ‘government’ in socialist countries makes it difficult to conceptualise social insurance under socialism in quite the same way as under a market system.) While there are many similarities in the structural details between the two variants, there are also some noticeable differences. The most conspicuous ones are that under the socialist variation, the em­ ployee generally makes no contribution, and that administration tends to be more decentralised, down to the enterprise level, often under local control or supervision.

Personal social services under socialism The implementation of personal social services in a socialist society is based on the unification or equalisation principle that permits distribution to each according to needs, rather than ability (Nabuaki 1985, p.133). This principle 6 Social welfare under socialism

incorporates the ethics of welfare based on the concept of need which becomes the central criterion for allocation. A Soviet writer endorses this position: The distribution of goods according to work done is the essential generator of the development of the productive services of society. However, it would be impossible, and indeed immoral, to be governed by this principle in distributing all items of current consumption and all material goods, because of the existence of the aged, the disabled and children ... More­ over, some needs should be satisfied irrespective of family income [such as education, medical, housing, and so forth]. (Kasiev as quoted by Madison 1973) Broadly speaking, personal social services meet needs of the individual as a socio-biological organ, in terms of sustenance, relationships, therapy or a state of affairs in the absence of which the individual fails to develop or function normally and may even falter or die (Smith 1977). The task of meeting such needs draws upon the ethics of welfare rather than the ethics of work. Accordingly, the principle of unification or equalisation has a legitimate place in the socialist welfare system, since Marx argued that man’s real and authentic needs could be fulfilled upon the advent of communist society in which distribution will be carried out in accordance with a person’s needs. It is inconceivable to think of Marxian conception of an ideal society if it fails to create conditions for meeting human needs irrespective of a person’s productive ability. Despite the observation that personal social services occupy an important place in the socialist welfare system, the problem of inadequate data presents a serious difficulty for any meaningful discussion of the topic. A further challenge also lies in the fact that personal social services under socialism have to be understood in the context of a tension between notions of the state responsibility and of personal or familial responsibility for such problems as unemployment, chronic illness, , addiction, marital conflict, delin­ quency, needs for protection and personal care and so forth. In the face of such problems the family often plays an important role in socialist societies, and hence the family has assumed the task of meeting individual needs. For example, in dealing with problems associated with people who are not eligible for social security and who are in need, the Soviet Union promulgated a family code in 1968 reaffirming the requirements governing responsible relatives: Social welfare under socialism 1

needy adults incapable of working must receive support from their par­ ents, children, step children and grandchildren. (Madison 1973, p.l 14) The fact that the Soviet system has made a provision for the institutional care of the needy, aged and disabled person clearly suggests the relevance of personal social services for the socialist welfare system. The important question is not whether personal social services are an established element of the socialist welfare system, but how, and through what mechanisms, those services are delivered. For example, in the Soviet Union the importance of familial responsibility has been revived. On the other hand Dixon (1981) in his study on China observed that ‘non-kinship organisations’ such as youth and women’s organisations, trade unions, local neighbourhood associations and other mass organisations have taken over the caring and protective functions of traditional family. The importance of the intricate nature of relationships between family and non-kinship organisations as mechanisms for providing personal social services should not escape our attention. In observing the traditional family system in China, Ascher (1972) noted that: What is interesting is that in the towns, housing estates are built at the same time as factories, and entire families including grandparents are resettled; not just industrial workers. This minimises the number of ‘drifters’ seeking jobs. The typical Chinese family today would appear to be more cohesive than its western counterpart, and if this is the case, then there would be a beneficial effect in terms of material and moral security. (pp.4-5, emphasis added) The implications of a family system which apparently combines broad economic objectives for personal social services are quite clear. In a similar view, Pinker (1980) suggested that a distinction between the Russian dvor (or joint family system), and the mir (or commune) should be made in the study of the socialist welfare system. The conclusion to be drawn, then, is that variations exist within socialist welfare systems. It warns against the dangers of simple generalisations. Studies included in this book reaffirm the functional importance of the family as a provider of personal social services in socialist societies. Madison (1973, p.l 15) suggests that institutional care exists in the Soviet Union although it is not available for all those who need it and want it. While this Soviet example should not be perceived as a yardstick against which to compare the performance of other socialist societies, it clearly establishes institutional care as an aspect of personal social services. 8 Social welfare under socialism

CONCLUSION

The egalitarian ethos of socialism is a myth (Parkin 1981) in that the oft-quoted dictum ‘from everyone according to ability, to everyone according to needs’ is a principle which is not fully compatible with socialism. Ideologists point out, of course, that socialism is only a temporary affair until the arrival of communism, when distribution will be according to individual need. This, in effect, acknowledges the reality of the structure of differential rewards or managed equality. As the work principle dominates socialist welfare values how does the need principle fit into the socialist welfare system? Rimlinger (1971) threw some light on this question when he observed that: Soviet writers are careful to point out that the socialist principle ‘to according to his work’ applies only to remuneration for work, not to social benefits. (p.256) Indeed, the socialist principle of distribution is designed to deal with loafers, malingerers and disorganisers of work. This principle does not, however, necessarily invalidate the socialist argument that social benefits are a gift from the state, an act of state benevolence, a true manifestation of socialist humanism. In essence, socialist welfare systems are based on the principles of occupational rewards and residual welfare.

REFERENCES Ascher, I. (1972), China*s Social Policy , London: Anglo-Chinese Educational Institute, Modern China Series, No. 3. Deacon, R. (1983), Social Policy and Socialism: The Struggle for Socialist Relations of Welfare, London and Sydney: Pluto Press. Dixon, J. (1981), The Chinese Social Welfare System: 1949-1979 , New York: Praeger. ------(1986), Social Security Traditions and Their Global Applications , Canberra: IFSED. George, V. and Manning, N. (1980), Socialism , Social Welfare and the Soviet Union, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Madison, B. (1973), ‘Soviet Income Maintenance Policy for the 1970s’, Journal of Social Policy , 2(2), April, pp.97-116. Marx, K. (1970), ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’ (letter to Brucke Mays 1875), in and : Selected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers. Mikul’shii, K. (1975), ‘Improvements of Distribution According to Labour in Comecon Countries’, Problems of Economics, 19(7), pp.24-42. Nabuaki, S. (1985), ‘The Changes in the Russian and Soviet Social Security*, in the Annals of the institute of , No.27, Tokyo: University of Tokyo. Social welfare under socialism 9

Navarro, V. (1976), Social Security and Medicare in the USSR: A Marxist Critique , Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Parkin, F. (1981), Class Inequality and Political Order , St Albans: Granada Publishing. Pinker, R. (1980), The Idea of Welfare, London: Heinemann. Rimlinger, G. V. (1971), Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe , America and Russia , New York: Wiley. Smith, M. B. (1977), ‘Metapsychology, and Human Needs’, in Fitzgerald, R. (ed.), Human Needs and Politics, Oxford: Pergamon Press. Yudin, P. (196-), From Socialism to Communism (translated by Jim Riordan), Moscow: Progress Publishers. References

1 Social welfare under socialism

Ascher, I. (1972), China*s Social Policy, London: Anglo-Chinese Educational Institute, Modern China Series, No. 3.

Deacon, R. (1983), Social Policy and Socialism: The Struggle for Socialist Relations of Welfare, London and Sydney: Pluto Press.

Dixon, J. (1981), The Chinese Social Welfare System: 1949-1979, New York: Praeger.

-----(1986), Social Security Traditions and Their Global Applications, Canberra: IFSED.

George, V. and Manning, N. (1980), Socialism, Social Welfare and the Soviet Union, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Madison, B. (1973), ‘Soviet Income Maintenance Policy for the 1970s’, Journal o f Social Policy, 2(2), April, pp.97-116.

Marx, K. (1970), ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’ (letter to Brucke Mays 1875), in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Selected Works, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Mikul’shii, K. (1975), ‘Improvements of Distribution According to Labour in Comecon Countries’, Problems of Economics, 19(7), pp.24-42.

Nabuaki, S. (1985), ‘The Changes in the Russian and Soviet Social Security*, in the Annals o f the institute o f Social Science, No.27, Tokyo: University of Tokyo.

Navarro, V. (1976), Social Security and Medicare in the USSR: A Marxist Critique, Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Parkin, F. (1981), Class Inequality and Political Order, St Albans: Granada Publishing.

Pinker, R. (1980), The Idea of Welfare, London: Heinemann. Rimlinger, G. V. (1971), Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America and Russia, New York: Wiley. Smith, M. B. (1977), ‘Metapsychology, Politics and Human Needs’, in Fitzgerald, R. (ed.), Human Needs and Politics, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Yudin, P. (196-), From Socialism to Communism (translated by Jim Riordan), Moscow: Progress Publishers. 2 China

Anderson, D. (1984), ‘Youth Waiting for Work in China*, Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 12 (July), 167-75.

Bacon, M. (1975), ‘Social Work in China*, Social Work, 20(1), 68-9.

Bernstein, T. P. (1977), ‘Urban Youth in the Countryside: Problems of Adaption and Remedies’, China Quarterly, 69,75-108.

Butler, S. (1974), Impressions o f China Today, Sydney: Hamlyn.

Cai, W. and Liu, H. (1981), ‘Marketing Changes in Beijing’, China Reconstructs, 30(1), 12-18.

Cartledge, S. (1977), ‘Community Organisation in Two Cities’, China Now, 72, 12-13.

Chang, P. Y. (1985), ‘The Early State of the Modernisation Drive in China: Its Promotion and Obstructive Forces’, Issues and Studies, 21(9), September, 11-34.

Ch’en, T. C. (1982), ‘The Prospects of the People’s Commune and the “Three Freedoms and One Contract’” , Issues and Studies, 18(5), 34-54.

Cherry, R. L. and Magnus-Martinson, S. (1981), ‘Modernisation and the Status of the Aged in China: Decline or Equalisation?’, Sociological Quarterly, 22, Spring, 253-61.

Chiang, C. C. (1985), ‘The Problems of the Aged in Mainland China’, Issues and Studies, 21(4), April, 108-30.

Chow, N. W. S. (1988), The Administration and Financiers o f Social Security in China, : Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

David-Friedman, D. (1978), ‘Welfare Practices in Rural China’, World Development, 6, 609-19.

-----(1979), ‘Old People and their Families in the People’s Republic of China’, unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Boston University.

-----(1981), ‘Retirement and Social Welfare Programs for Chinese Elderly: A Minimal Role for the State*, in Nusberg, C. and Osaka, M. (eds), The Situation of the Asian/Pacific Elderly, Washington, DC: International Federation on Ageing.

-----(1983), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

-----(1985), ‘Chinese Retirement: Policy and Practice*, Current Perspectives on Ageing Under the Life Cycle, 1,295-313.

Dixon, J. (1981a), The Chinese Welfare System: 1949-1979, New York: Praeger.

----- (1981b), ‘Community-based Welfare Support in China: 1949-1979’, Community Development Journal, 16(1), 21-30.

-----(1981c), ‘The Welfare of Urban Youth in China: 1949-1979’, Journal of Adolescents, 4, 1-12.

-----(1981d), ‘Family and Welfare in China: 1949-1979’, Indian Journal o f Social Work, 42(3), 229-38.

-----(1981e), ‘The Worker’s Social Assistance System in China: 1949-1979*, International Social Work, 24(1), 1-13.

-----(19810, ‘The Welfare of the Handicapped in the People’s Republic of China’, Journal o f Rehabilitation, 47(2), 66-70. China 45

-----(1982), ‘The Community-Based Rural Welfare System in the People’s Republic of China: 1949-1979’, Community Development Journal, 17(1), 2-12.

-----(1983), ‘The Welfare of People’s Liberation Army Veterans and Dependants in China: 1949-1979’, Armed Forces and Society, 9(3), Spring, 483-94.

Emerson, J. P. (1983), ‘Urban School Leavers and Unemployment in China’, China Quarterly, 9(3), 1-16.

Fen, L. and Zhao, L. (1982), ‘Urban Unemployment in China’, Social Sciences in China, 3(1), 123-39.

Fletcher, M. D. (1974), Workers and Commissars: Trade Union Policy in the People's Republic o f China, Occasional Paper No.6, Bellington, Washington: Program in East Asian Studies, Washington State College.

Foreign Broadcast Information Service, People’s Republic of China, Daily Report (FBIS-PRC-DR), Washington, DC: Congress.

Gen, M. (1961), ‘Social Security in Communist China’, Chugoku Kenyu Seppo (China Research Monthly), Tokyo 161,30 July, 1-27 (trans. in Joint Publication Research Services, 11, 802,29 December).

Gittings, J. (1982), ‘Communes: New Direction or Abandonment’, China Now, 2-4.

Gold, T. B. (1980), ‘Back to the City: The Return of ’s Educated Youth*, China Quarterly, 84,755-70.

Goldman, R. (1976), ‘Early Childhood Education in China’, Education News, 15(6), 4-9.

Hearn, J. M. (1977), ‘W(h)ither the Trade Union in China*, Journal o f Industrial Relations, 19(2), June.

Huang, L. J. (1976), ‘The Family and the Communes in the People’s Republic of China: Retrospect and Prospect’, Journal o f Comparative Family Studies, 7(1), Spring, 97-110.

Huang, X. and Yang, X. (1987), ‘From Iron Ricebowls to Labor Market: Reforming the Social Security System*, in Reynolds, B. L., Reform in China, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

International Labour Organisation (ILO) (1986), ILO Information, 22(5), December.

Ishikawa, S. (1983), ‘China’s Economic Growth Since 1949-a n Assessment’, China Quarterly, 94, June.

Kallgren, J. (1969), ‘Social Welfare and China’s Industrial Workers’, in Doak Barnett, A. (ed.), Chinese Communist Politics in Action, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Kapralov, P„ Kruglov, A. and Ostrovsky, A. (1981), ‘Some Trends in the Chinese ’s Social and Economic Policies’, Far Eastern Affairs, 1,90-100.

Kessen, W. (1975), Childhood in China, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Kojima, R. (1982), ‘China’s New ’, Developing Economies, 20(4), 390-413.

Ladany,L. (1953), ‘The Workers* Insurance System in China’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 14(24), 14 June, 763-4.

Liu, L. (1982), ‘Mandatory Retirement and Other Reforms Pose New Challenges for China’s Government*, Aging and Work, 5(2), 119-33.

-----(1987), ‘Recent Social Security Developments in the People’s Republic of China’, Social Security Bulletin, 50(4), April, 75-8.

Ma, L. J. C. (1977), ‘Counterurbanisation and Rural Development: the Strategy of Hsia-Hsiang’, Current Scene, 15(8,9), August-September, 1-12.

Mechanic, D. and Kleinman, A. (1980), ‘Ambulatory Medical Care in the People’s Republic of China: an Exploratory Study’, American Journal o f Public , 70, 62-6.

0 ‘Leary, G. and Watson, A. (1982), ‘The Production Responsibility System and the Future of Collective Farming’, Australian Journal o f Chinese Affairs, 8, 1-85.

-----(1982-3), ‘The Role of the People’s Commune in Rural Development in China’, Pacific Affairs, 55(4), 593-612.

Olson, P. (1987), ‘A Model of Elder Care in the People’s Republic of China’, International Journal o f Ageing, 24(4), 279-300.

-----(1988), ‘Modernization in the People’s Republic of China: the Politicization of the Elderly’, Sociological Quarterly, 29(21), 241-62.

Peng, X. (1982), ‘Rural Responsibility System: Spot Report*, China Reconstructs, 31(8), 51-6.

Rhode, A. (1951), ‘Social Insurance in Communist China: The for Workers’ Insurance of February 26,1951’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 11(4), 26 July, 101-3.

Rosner, S. (1977), ‘ in China’, Australia-China Society Bulletin, 5 February and 5-7 March.

Saich, T. (1982), ‘Workers’ Participation in China*, China Now, 104, 4-6.

Saith, A. (1981), ‘Economic Incentives for the One Child Family in Rural China’, China Quarterly, 87,492-500. Seybolt, P. J. and Bernstein, T. P. (eds) (1977), The Rustication o f Urban Youth in China: A , White Plains, NY: Sharpe.

Sidell, R. (1974), Families ofFengsheng: Urban Life in China, Baltimore: Penguin.

Sklair, L. (1981), ‘Whither the Communes?’, China Now, 99,5-6.

State Labour Office (1980), ‘An Outline of Labour Insurance and Welfare Benefits for Workers and Staff in all Work Places of the Chinese People*, unpublished manuscript made available by the US Department of Health and Human Service’s Social Security Administration (translated by China Consulting and Translating Service, Canberra).

Tan, M. (1980), ‘Lightening the Load for Working Mothers’, China Reconstructs, 29(3), 19-22.

Taylor, J. R. (1985), Employment and Unemployment in China: Results from 10 Per cent Sample Tabulation o f 1982 Population Census, Washington, DC: Foreign Economies Report, 23, US Bureau of Census.

Treas, J. (1979), ‘Socialist Organisation and Economic Development in China: Latent Consequences for the Aged’, Gerontologist, 19, 34-43.

United States Bureau of Census (1980), ‘Estimates and Projections of Population in China, January 1,1953-2006, Model A’, Washington, DC: US Bureau of Census, Foreign Demographic Analysis Division.

Wang, H. W. (1982), ‘Old Problems and New Thoughts Among Mainland Youth’, Issues and Studies, 18(7), 94-105.

You, Y. (1981), ‘Jobless Youth Starts Small Businesses’, China Reconstructs, 30(10).

Yu, G. (1986), ‘Opening Address at the International Forum on Ageing’, Beijing, May, p.3.

Yuan, J. (1986), ‘The Reform in Social Security in the Old in China’, presented at the International Forum on Ageing, Beijing, May.

Yuan, P.- P. (1978), ‘The “Sending Down” Movement Since the Cultural Revolution (1966-73)’, Issues and Studies, 14(1), 41-57.

Zweig, D. (1983), ‘Opposition to Change in Rural China: The System of Responsibility and People’s Communes’, Asian Survey, 23(7), 879-900. 3 Cuba

Banco Nacional de Cuba (1982), Informe Económico, La Habana.

Brundenius, C. (1984), Revolutionary Cuba: The Challenge o f Economic Growth with Equity, Boulder and London: Westview Press.

Central de Trabajadores de Cuba (CTC) (1980a), Sistema de Seguridad Social, Regimen de Asistencia Social, Regimen de Seguridad Social, La Habana.

-----(1980b), Sistema de Seguridad Social: Anexo, La Habana.

Centro de Investigaciones de la Economía Mundial (1983), Estudio Acerca de la Erradicación de la Pobreza en Cuba, La Habana.

CETSS (1977a), La Seguridad Social en Cuba, La Habana.

-----(1977b), ‘Investigación sobre evolución y tendencias de la seguridad social en el trienio 1974-1976’, Seguridad Social, 26, 105-6.

-----(1983), 24 anos de Revolución en la Seguridad Social Cubano, La Habana.

Comile Estalal de Estadísticos (CEE) (nd), Anuario Estadístico de Cuba, 1982, La Habana.

-----(1986), Anuario Estadístico de Cuba, 1985, La Habana.

Comisión de Aportes Estatales a la Seguridad Social (1957), Bases Técnicas Para la Reforma de los Seguros Sociales, La Habana: Editorial Lex.

Domínguez, J. I. (1978), Cuba: Order and Revolution, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gaceta Oficial (1982), Cuba: Conversión de los Principales Indicadores Macroeconomicos del Sistema de Balances de la Economía Nacional (SB EN) al Sistema se Cuentas Nacionales (SCN) 1974, La Habana.

Grupo Cubano de Investigaciones Económicas (1963), Un Estudio sobre Cuba, Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.

-----(1964), Social Security in Cuba, Miami: University of Miami Press. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1951), Report on Cuba, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Mathews-Smith, H. (1983), ‘Cuban Medicine: An Eyewitness Report’, A/D.

Mesa-Lago, C. (1960), Planificación de la Seguridad Social: Análisis Especial de la Problemática Cubana, La Habana: Editorial Librería Marti.

-----(1980), ‘Seguridad social y pobreza*, in Molina, S. (ed.), Se Puede Superar la Pobreza, Santiago: CEPAL/ILPES, 163-89.

-----(1981), The o f Socialist Cuba, Albuquerque: University of New Press.

-----(1986), ‘Cuba’s Centrally Planned Economy: An Equity Trade-Off for Growth’, in Hartlyn, J. and Morley, S. (eds), Latin American , Boulder: Westview Press, 292-318.

-----(1988), ‘The Cuban Economy in the 1980s: The Return of Ideology’, in Roca, S. G. (ed.), Socialist Cuba: Past Interpretations and Future Challenges, Boulder: Westview Press.

Ministerio del Trabajo (nd), Principales Disposiciones Vigentes de la Seguridad Social Cubana, La Habana.

Partido Comunista de Cuba (1978), ‘Tesis sobre la lucha ideológica’, in Tesis y Resoluciones: Primer Congreso del Partido Comunista de Cuba, La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 232.

Penate Rivero, O. (1984), Información Sobre el Sistema de Seguridad Social Cubano, La Habana: CETSS, 2-4.

-----and Lugo Machado, I. (1985), ‘Acerca del financiamiento de la seguridad social en Cuba’, in Modelos y Estrategias Financieras: Conferencias, Mexico DF: CIESS.

Perez-Lopez, J. (1986), ‘The Cuban Economy in the 1980s’, Problems of Communism, 35(5), 16-34.

Roca, S. G. (1978), ‘Cuba’s International Economic Relations’, in Roca, S. (ed.), Socialist Cuba, Boulder: Westview Press.

-----(1983), ‘Cuba Confronts the 1980s’, Current History, February, 74-8. -----(1984), ‘Rural Public Services in Socialist Cuba’, in Lonsdale, R. and Enyedi, G. (eds), Rural Public Services: International Comparisons, Boulder and London: Westview Press.

Rodriguez, B. (1966), ‘La seguridad social en Cuba*, Cuba Socialista, December, 14-30.

Seminario Latinoamericano de Cuentas Nacionales y Balance de la Economía (1982), Cuba: Conversion de los Principales Indicadores del Sistema de Balances de la Economía Nacional (SBEN) al Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales (SCN) 1974, La Habana. 5 Hungary

Ferge, Z. (1986), Fejezetek a Magyar Szegenypolikia Tortenetebdl [‘Chapters on the history of the policy with the poor in Hungary’], Budapest: Magvetd Publishing House.

Lad^nyi, J. and Csan&li, G. (1983), Szelekcid azAltaldnos is Koldban [‘Selection in primary schools’], Budapest* Magvet6 Publishing House. 6 North Korea

Albert, M. and Hahmel, R. (1981), and Socialist Theory: Socialism in Theory and Practice, London: South End Press.

An, Tai Sung (1983), North Korea: A Political Handbook, Delaware: Scholarly Resources.

Bahros, R. (1978), The Alternatives in Eastern Europe (Tr. by D. Femback), Norfolk: Lowe and Brydone.

Barrett, S. and Fudge, C. (1981), Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of , London and New York: Methuen.

Chung, Joseph Snag-Hoon (1973), ‘Availability and Reliability in North Korean Statistics’, Asian Forum, July/September.

Democratic People*s Republic o f Korea (DPRK) (1958), Pyongyang: Foreign Language Publishing House.

Democratic Peoples Republic o f Korea (1984), Pyongyang: Foreign Language Publishing House.

Fainsod, M. (1964), ‘How Russia is Ruled’ as quoted in Kang Gu-Jin’s ‘Fiction of Fundamental Rights in North Korean Constitution (II)’, Vantage Point, VII (5), May.

Feher, R., Heller, A. and Markus, G. (1983), Dictatorship Over Needs: An Analysis of Soviet Societies, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ferge, Z. (1979), A Society in the Making: Hungarian Social and Societal Policy, 1945-1975, London: Penguin.

Halliday, J. (1981), ‘The Korean Model: Gaps and Questions’, World Development, 9 (9/10), pp.889-905.

Hogwood, B. W. et al. (1984), for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 154 North Korea

Kihl, Young-whun (1984), Politics and Policies in Divided Korea, Boulder and London: Westview Press.

Kim, H. S. (1986), ‘Ideology as a Determinant of the Development of Social Welfare Systems: A Comparative Study of the Capitalist and Socialist Welfare Systems in the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 1945-1985’. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Kim, Ilpyong (1963), ‘The Judicial and Administrative Structure in North Korea’, China Quarterly, 14 (April/June), pp.94-104.

Kim, Il-Sung (1972), as quoted in Kong, Jin-Giu (1985), ‘Fiction of Fundamental Rights in North Korean Constitution* (I), Vantage Point, VIII (4), April.

-----(1972), as quoted in ‘Security and Unification Research of Dang-A Ilbo, Materials on Security and Unification Problems, Appendix on North Korea*, pp.35-6, in Kong, Jin-Gu’s ‘Fiction of Fundamental Rights in North Korean Constitution’ (II), Vantage Point, VI (5), May. King, M. (1966), Medical Care in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Korean Review (1982), Pyongyang: Foreign Language Publishing House.

Lee, Chun-a (1983), ‘Factors for the Maintenance of North Korean System’, Vantage Point, V (10), October. Linser, L. (1982), North-Koreanisches Reisetagebuch, Stuttgart: Fischer. McCormack, G. (1981), ‘North Korea: Kimilsungism path to socialism?’, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 13 (4), December, pp.50-61. Matthews, M. (1972), Class and Society in Soviet Russia, London: Allen Lane. NaeWoe (1985), ‘North Korea’s Working Conditions and Wage Systems’, No.437, 31 May (in Korean).

-----(1985), ‘Labour’ Serial No.437,31 May. [Unpublished working document for internal circulation by the Agency for National Security Planning of the Republic of Korea.]

-----(1986), ‘Rodong Haengchung Saop Kang Wha’ [The Enforcement of Labour Administration], 501(29), Seoul. Nae Woe Tong Shin (1986), ‘North Korea’s Working Conditions’ (in Korean). North Korea Quarterly (1978), I (2), Hamburg.

-----(1982), 29, Hamburg. Parkin, G. (1981), Class Inequality and Political Order, St Albans: Granada Publishing Ltd. Population Reference Bureau (1982), World Population Data Sheet of the Population Reference Bureau, Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau. Pryor, F. L. (1968), Public Expenditure in Communist and Capitalist Nations, London: George Allen and Unwin. Research Centre for Peace and Unification (1975), Socio-Cultural Comparisons Between South and North Korea, Seoul: Research Centre for Peace and Unification. Rhee, Sang-Woo (1983), ‘Social Policy and Development in North Korea’, in R. A. Scalapino and J. Y. Kim (1983) (eds), North Korea Today: Strategic and Domestic Issues, Berkeley: University of California (Centre for Korean Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies).

Riner, L. (1982), Nord-Koreanisches Reisetagebuch (Trans, by Kim Young Sun). Bonn: Fischer Informationen zur Zeit.

Scalapino, R. A. and Kim, J. Y. (eds) (1983), North Korea Today: Strategic and Domestic Issues, Berkeley: University of California (Center for Korean Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies).

Scalapino, R. A. and Lee, C-. S. (1972), Communism in Korea, Los Angeles and London: University of California.

Shin, Dong-A (1989), Charyo ro pon Bukham 1945-88 [An Annotated Collection of Data on North Korea, 1945-88]. Supplementary publication to the January Issue. Seoul: Dong-A Daily Publication.

Shinn, Rinn-sup et al. (1969), Area Handbook for North Korea, Washington DC: US Government Publishing Office.

World Bank (1982), World Population Report, Washington DC: World Bank. 7 Poland

Byrkowski, J. (1988), National Minorities in Europe, Opole: Publishing House.

Gebethner, S. (1986), Perception o f the Electoral System and in Public Opinion According to the 1985 Survey in Poland, Warsaw: Warsaw University.

Kowalak, T. (1987), ‘Social Policy in Poland in the Coming 25 Years’, Social Policy, No.5/6.

Ksiezopolski, M., Sienko, I. et al. (1986), The Shift in the Welfare Mix: a Challenge Under Conditions of a Changing Reality o f Work, European Comparative Research Project, Polish Report, Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Training and Research.

Les, E. (1985), ‘Social Services for the Poor in Poland’, in Social Policy Under the Process o f Change (ed. J. Supinska, A. Piekara), Warsaw: Economic Publishing House.

-----(1985), ‘Some Social Threats in Poland in Relation to Procedures and Models of Social Policy*. A paper given at the European Symposium of ICSW, Turku, . -----(1986), ‘Autonomy of Voluntary Associations in Poland in the Opinion of Their Workers and Volunteers’. A paper presented during the Polish-Finnish Colloquium on Political , Cracow, September. -----(1988), ‘An Overview of Attitudes, Values and Ideology in Social Work Practice in Poland in the Context of Historical Development of the Social Worker Profession*. A paper presented at the IFSW, World Congress, Stockholm. Milosevic, V. (1988), ‘Some Problems in the Process of Professionalisation and Institutionalisation of Social Work in Yugoslavia*. A paper presented at the IFSW World Congress, Stockholm. Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (1974), Social Welfare and the Lines o f its Development in the Polish People's Republic, Polish Medical Publisher, Warsaw: Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.

Piekara, A. (1986), Local Community and Self-Government, Warsaw: National Publishing Agency.

Piotrowski, J. (1966), Social Security, Warsaw: Public Publishing Agency ‘Ksiazka i Wiedza*. Rajkiewicz, A. (1979), Social Policy, Warsaw: Economic Publishing House. Rosner, J. (1976), ‘Polish Report’, in Cross-National Studies o f Social Service Systems, (eds Alfred J. Kahn and Sheila B. Kaamerman), New York: Columbia University, School of Social Work.

-----(1978), ‘Sixty Years of Polish Social Policy*, Social Policy, No.l 1/12.

Szubert, W. (1987), An Overview of Social Insurance System, Warsaw: Public Publishing House.

Winiewski, M. (1984), ‘Social Welfare Area in Poland. The Scope and Limits’, Social Policy, No.2.

Wrzeszcz, M. (1987), ‘Strengthening the Family as a Basis for National Recovery’, Family Aid, No.2.

Zoedowski, C. (1988), Social Status o f Lithuanian Minority in Poland, Warsaw: Dissertation manuscript, Warsaw University. 8 Soviet Union

Goralska, H. (1987), ‘Pozion zycia w krajach RWPG w 1986 roku\ Forecast Seminar on the COMECON, Warsaw University, Department of Economics.

Janczewski, J. and Klos, B. (1987), ‘Analiza wykonania planow w roku 1985 w europejskich krajach RWPG’, Materialy dyskusyjne, No.44, 1986, Forecast Seminar on the COMECON, Warsaw University, Department of Economics.

Kozlov, A. (1986), ‘L’goty i sotsial’nye uslugi invalidam’, Moscow 1972. Kryazhev, W. (1986), ‘Sovremennyi podkhod k probleme maloobespcchennosti’, Sotsialisticheski trud, No. 10. Makartsev, J. (1986), ‘Unexpected eldemess’, Sobyegedvik, No.48. Osipenko, O. (1986), ‘Netrudovye dokhody i formy ikh proyavleniya*, Ekonomicheskie nauki, No.l 1. Osnovnye napravleniya razvitiya sotsial’noi politiki v SSSR (1987), Paper prepared for the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Social Affairs, Warsaw, 6-12 April. Rimashevskaya, N. M. (1986), ‘O putyakh effectivnogo resheniya sotsial’nykh problem*, Kommunist, No. 12. Sarkisyan, G. S. (1972), Unroven*, tempy i proportsii rosta reaVnykh dokhodov pri sotsializme, Moscow.

Sarkisyants, G. (1986), ‘Sotsial’naya politika, trud i blagosostoyanie’, Sotsialisticheski trud, No.6.

Selunin, W. and Khanin, G. (1987), ‘Lukavaya Tsifra’, Novy mir, No.2. Sokhin, A. (1987), ‘Bor’ba s netrudovymi dokhodami: sotsial’no-ekonomicheski aspekt’, Planovoe khozyaistvo, No.2. Solovev, A. (1987), ‘Gotovitsya proekt novogo zakona o pensiyakh’, Sotsialisticheski trud, No.4.

Zakharov, M. L. Piskov (1979), SotsiaVnoe obespechenie i strakhovanie v SSSR, Sbornik ofitsiaVnykh dolumentov s kommentariyami, Moscow, 1972.

Zdravomyslov, A. G. (1986), ‘Polityka spoleczna KPZR jako czynnik przyspieszenia rozwoju spoleczenstwa radzieckiego’, Mysl marksistowska, No.6. 9 Yugoslavia

Aleksejev, P. and Pavlovic, B. (1988), ‘The Pupils’ and University Students’ Living Standard’, Yugoslav Survey, No.3.

-----(1989), ‘Agreement on Common Basis of Social Welfare Rights’, Consortium of Republican Research Institutes, Belgrade.

Becin, A. and Milosavlejevic, M. (1986), ‘Social Work Centres’, Yugoslav Survey (Belgrade), No. 12.

-----(1988), ‘Economic and Social Implications of Aging of Rural Population’, Social Policy (Belgrade), No. 12.

Croatian Trade Unions Report (1987), ‘An Information About Development of Child Care System in Croatia*, Social Policy (Belgrade), No.l 1 and 12.

Dolenz, F. (1987), ‘Development Programme of Old People Care in *, Social Policy (Belgrade), No.9-11.

Federal Bureau of Employment Affairs (1990), Official Annual Report, Belgrade.

Federal Committee for Labour, Health and Social Policy (1988), Social Policy in Conditions o f Economic Reform, Belgrade, unpublished.

Federal Statistic Institute of Yugoslavia (1988), Statistical Yearbook o f Yugoslavia, Belgrade.

Gavric, S. etal. (1989), Economic Position of Health Service in Yugoslavia and Main Directions o f Necessary Changes, Belgrade: Federal Committee for Labour, Health and Social Policy.

Hmjica, S. (1987), ‘Special Education*, Yugoslav Survey (Belgrade), No.9.

Milojevic, J (1987), ‘Collective Forms of Housing and Old People Care in Voyvodina’, Social Policy (Belgrade), No.9-11.

Mishra, R. (1979), Society and Social Policy, London: Macmillan.

Mladenovic, M. (1987), ‘Family and Social Crisis’, Social Policy (Belgrade), No. 11-12.

Munday, B. (1989), The Crisis o f Welfare: An International Perspective on Social Work, London: Wheatsheaf.

Ruzica, M. (1974), ‘Housing Conditions of Social Welfare Recipients’, Social Policy (Belgrade), No.3.

-----(1980), Sheltered Workshops and Invalids' Protection, Belgrade: School for Social Work and Institute for Social Problem Research.

-----(1984), Invalids and Society, Belgrade: Institute for Social Policy.

----- (1987), ‘Social Policy in the 1980s: Continuity or Change of Strategy’, Sociological Survey, No. 1-2.

Svetlik, I. and Kolaric, Z. (1987), ‘Yugoslav System of Welfare’, Sociological Survey (Belgrade), No. 1-2.

-----(1990), The Christian Science Monitor, 11 July, p.6.

Todorovic, L. (1985), ‘Child Care System’, Yugoslav Survey, No. 10.

Tomorod, M. (1986), ‘Homes for Elderly in Croatia’, Presented at the Third Gerontological Congress, Zagreb. This page intentionally left blank