Abstract摘要

 

欧洲是福利国家的发祥地，因其高福利政策和良好的社会保障而受到世界的高度赞扬。然而，金融危机席卷全球，欧元区危机对欧洲经济的挑战，整个欧洲的社会保障体系。他们的福利制度在深水中。近年来，我国社会保障制度在一个时期的发展和改革中一直处于一个发展和改革的阶段。因此，研究欧洲福利制度的困境，尤其是在欧债危机下，对我国的社会福利制度的困境具有重要的借鉴意义和启示意义。

Europe is the birthplace of the welfare state, it has been praised by the world for its high welfare policy and excellent social security. However, after the financial crisis swept the world, eurozone crisis which attacks European economic challenges the whole European social security system. Their welfare systems are in deep water. In recent years, Chinese social security has been in a period of development and reform. Therefore, researching on the predicament of European welfare system especially under the euro debt crisis is an important reference and an enlightenment of meanings to China.

我对欧洲国家的福利模式进行了系统回顾，将其分为四部分：东、西、北、南。然后，我选了一个代表从每个部分和研究他们。我用福利经济学理论和博弈论分析数据，最后我将欧洲福利国家与美国的福利国家进行比较，以便找到欧洲国家如何改变其政策和改革福利国家。得出的结论是，欧洲政府应该逐步减少福利支出，同时更注重政策对激活如工作条件效益因素，

I performed a systematic review on European countries’ welfare models, classifying them into four parts: East, West, North and South. Then I selected a representative from each part and studied them. I used welfare economics theory and game theory to analyse data, finally I compare European welfare states as a whole with American welfare states in order to find how can European countries change their policies and reform their welfare states. The conclusion is that European government should gradually reduce welfare spending, meanwhile focus more policies on activations factors such as work conditional benefit,

 

Introduction介绍

 

欧洲债务危机，全称是欧洲主权债务危机，意味着自主权债务危机发生在一些欧洲国家的2009。这是美国次贷危机的延续和深化。其原因在于政府的债务负担太多，远远超出政府的容忍范围。因此违约风险发生。The European debt crisis, the full name is European sovereign debt crisis, means that since 2009 the sovereign debt crisis happened in some European countries. It is a continuation and deepening of the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis. Its reason is that there are too many debt burdens on the government, far exceeding governmental tolerance range. So the risk of default occurred.

In the early Wall Street financial crisis in October 2008, the Nordic Icelandic sovereign debt problems came to the fore. Then the debt crisis happened in the Middle East area, given the small economies of these countries and timely international aids, the sovereign debt problems had not lead to a greater global financial turmoil.

In December 2009, the Greek sovereign debt crisis issue was highlighted. In March 2010, it became worse. The debt crisis began to spread in five European countries, namely Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. Meanwhile, the three major U.S. rating agencies downgraded Greece and other debtors’ credit rating constantly which made people worry about the whole Europe credit. Finally, the eurozone crisis broke out.

 

Under the terrible eurozone crisis, it is difficult to maintain high level welfare policies for most European countries. In addition to the harsh economic environment, welfare states have features of rigid expansion, all of them cause the European welfare systems to be locked in the horns of a dilemma.

This article will explain what the dilemma eurozone countries are facing with. It is a policy making problem rather than an economical problem. In fact, the dilemma of policy is originally from the common currency dilemma that there are different states with diversed economic level in the whole European Union. In the past, if one country lost its competitiveness of export or energy of economy, it could devalue the currency to stimulate the economy. However, when the common currency policy came into force, the former measure was disappeared. So the countries merged into crisis have to reduce wages of workers and decrease the costs while people are opposed to it. How to balance the economic and people’s feelings becomes the critical part. 

The study begins with introducing typical European social welfare regimes. It is based on the Esping Andersen’s idea: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. The man classified welfare states into three types, they are “Liberal welfare states, Conservative corporatist welfare states and Social-democratic welfare states ”. The main features of the liberal welfare states are “means-tested assistance, modest universal transfers or modest social-insurance plans” “Benefits cater mainly to a clientele of low-income, usually working class, state dependants.” In it, the “limits of welfare equal the marginal propensity to opt for welfare instead of work. Entitlement rules are therefor strict and often associated with stigma; benefits are typically modest.”The examples of it are the Australia, United State and Canada . The second one, so called “conservative/corporatist welfare states”, which emphasizes on social insurance not the social assistance.  As the Esping Anderson analysed, in the “conservative welfare state”, all of the contributions and benefits is not distributed equally, because of the individual’s insurance is different, it is based on income for each person. In other words, it is quite like the Bismark model.“…the corporatist regimes are also typically shaped by the Church, and hence strongly committed to the preservation of traditional familyhood. Social insurance typically excludes non-working wives, and family benefits encourage motherhood.” “…the state will only interfere when the family’s capacity to service its members is exhausted”. For example, the countries of this model are France, Italy, Austria and Germany. The last type, “social-democratic welfare states”, provides a high level of service and benefit. “all strata are incorporated under one universal insurance system, yet benefits are graduated according to accustomed earnings. This model crowds out the market [meaning the private sector providing such things as pension plans]…” “The ideal is not to maximise dependence on the family, but capacities for individual independence.” The state opts to “take direct responsibility of caring for children, the aged and the helpless.” It is promised to “allow women to choose work rather than the household ” “The Scandinavian social democrats were…capable of building a welfare state with features of sufficient luxury to satisfy the wants of a more discriminating public [by which I think he means those who were better off].” The representatives are the Scandinavian countries.