ANTHONY M. ABELA

Social policy in Malta is undergoing a civilising process, not far removed from what has been observed in other European countries as the squaring of the welfare ‘circle’ (George 1996) or ‘triangle’ (Hantrais 1996). In these countries there is an increasing awareness that the ever expanding, universalist and bureaucratically run welfare state has to be gradually contained, modified and replaced by new forms. This entails a move away from predominant state welfare towards the provision of care by informal sectors of the family, friends and neighbours, the independent not-for-profit sector, and, to a lesser degree, the commercial organisation of care (Munday 1996: 226). Accordingly, institutional welfare structures of the state are giving way to a welfare-mix in civil society. In the new situation, state agents have to share their space with a growing number of voluntary and altruistic associations (Giner and Sarasa 1996: 139).

    In the beginning of the nineties, government social policy has taken measures to implement the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, participation, decentralisation, prevention, empowerment and self-reliance with a special focus on the family. Huge capital was invested in infra-structural social projects having to do with a rapid expansion of tertiary education, an investment in human capital, reforms in mental health services, opening of new homes for the elderly in local communities and the building of a new national hospital. Public funds were also spent to set up and maintain new welfare units for specialised needs having to do with substance abuse, child protection, domestic violence, community work and a multiplicity of home-based services for diverse client groups. Most initiatives and joint ventures with non-governmental organisations relied heavily on state funding. The most recent economic survey (1997: 200-3) records an upward rise in capital and recurrent expenditures over the past few years, in particular for social security benefits, health, care for the elderly and family affairs but less for social housing, primary and secondary education.

    Successive Maltese governments have manifested their commitment to maintain state social security whilst developing new social services for the needs of  late modernity. At the same time, new professional organisations keep advancing claims for the expansion of statutory social services, social work in particular (Pace 1997). Such demands are taking place at a time when national accounts record an increasing gap between government revenue and expenses on social welfare. [Table 1]
 
 

Source: Economic Survey, 1997

    In a first measure to reduce welfare spending the former nationalist government put an end to universal children allowances, making them exclusively available to low income families. This move marked a shift from state universal provision towards targeted benefits. More recently, the labour government has taken measures to curb public spending and to ensure that fiscal morality is observed. In the budget for 1998, there was an increase in taxes and subsidies on basic public services like water and electricity were reduced. More innovative policies, however, seem to be required to reconcile the demands for welfare and the incumbent necessity to cut public spending. Very likely, in order to guarantee social security for future generations, governments would have to give greater importance to civil society, and to enter into partnerships with the voluntary, church and informal sectors. For this purpose, reliable knowledge on the real needs of citizens, the extent to which people in need make use of self-help resources in the family and community, and the kind of help they demand from specialised institutions is indispensable. The crucial question is whether citizens are willing, and if so how, to transfer demands for social benefits and welfare services from direct provision by the state to other institutions, self-help groups, producers and consumers in civil society.  In the final analysis, what is the relation between civil society and the welfare state?

    Social scientists observe that civil society is not to be associated with a private realm clearly separated and in opposition to the state. Nor is it to be confined to the institutions of the voluntary or non-governmental sector. A broad understanding of civil society involves the investigation of everyday social practices, social relations and the shared moralities that hold communities together (Hann and Dunn eds. 1996). The development of civil society is concerned with citizens’ actual participation in a combination of self-help groups, exchange of services with family members, relatives, neighbours or friends, voluntary organisations, social institutions in the community and the corresponding demands for state subsidiary help or intervention. The success or otherwise of the welfare mix in civil society depends on an adequate appraisal of citizens’ strategies for welfare, their demands for help from the various agents of society, and the subsequent development of policies by the state and its social partners. This paper is a contribution in this direction.
 

Methods

    In the mid-nineties a nationally representative survey on social welfare was organised by a university sociologist in Malta and Gozo (N = 500) similar to a study held in Spain by the Centro de Estudios Sobre la Realidad Social (CIRES). The population was chosen in a two-stage random sample from the full list of registered voters. Specially trained interviewers administered a Maltese version of the questionnaire in the homes of respondents. The survey enquired about living arrangements, relations with family members, neighbours and friends, participation in the job market, home ownership, the possession of utilities in the home, the sufficiency or otherwise of family income, cuts in spending, reliance on social security and experience of hardship in the family. Respondents were to assess the available social services and to identify their demands for social welfare from the state, the family, voluntary and non-governmental organisations. Data sets from both surveys made possible a comparative analysis of present social conditions and the demands for social welfare in two neighbouring southern European and Mediterranean countries (Abela 1996).
 

Household composition

    The spatial density of the Maltese islands coupled with the reproduction of traditional values in the community favour the upkeep of strong family ties and kinship networks. In fact, most respondents meet a member of their family who does not live in the same household almost everyday, or at least once a week. Very few see their relatives less than once a month or never. Kinship and family networks remain one of the strongest human resources. Most find solace and support in their immediate or extended family. This explains why Maltese social policy shares with other southern or ‘latin’ European countries a strong reliance on family and community networks.
 

Housing and amenities

    Most households have basic amenities of modern living such as a bathroom, hot water, a refrigerator and a colour television. Automatic washing machines, micro-wave ovens, dishwashers and central heating are less to be found in Maltese households, possibly because, by local standards, these appliances are still considered a luxury. More respondents in Malta than in other southern European countries like Spain, however, have a telephone, a video player, a hi-fi equipment, a vacuum cleaner and a computer. The relatively higher possession of electronic appliances suggests that people in Malta value information technology more than the products of industrial society. The advancing information society, however, can easily overlook certain sectors of society who lack the basic amenities of modern living, where not a few households still do not have a bathroom and hot water, a colour T.V. or a telephone. These people stand a risk of social exclusion in the emerging information society.
 
 

Financial situation

    Most respondents have a family member presently employed. Very few families have an adult member not in paid employment and on unemployment benefits. The low unemployment rate relative to western Europe, is partly explained by the high performance of the Maltese economy and a diffuse enterprise culture, but also by the government's policy to invest in human capital favouring the rapid expansion of tertiary education, paying generous stipends to young university students. A few receive financial help from relatives, friends or acquaintances not living in the same house but extremely few receive financial help from private organisations such as the Church or Caritas.
 

State benefits

Cuts in spending

Relative poverty

    Most respondents hold that there is less poverty in Malta than in other southern European countries. Only two in ten think that there are more poor people in their country than in other Southern European states, though some are unable to estimate the level of their country's poverty relative to others. At the time of the survey a feeling of economic insecurity was less pronounced in Malta than in a country like Spain where most respondents were somewhat worried or very worried about how things will be for the future of their family. Only ten percent in Spain in contrast to thirty-five percent in Malta were indifferent or never used to think about the matter, suggesting that the apprehension about the future was more widespread in Spain.
 

Social affliction

    The relative high incidence of fatigue for having to take care of oneself corresponds to the feeling of stress, nervousness and uneasiness which was reported by Maltese respondents at the time of the survey. This is also accompanied by an over-preoccupation with the financial situation and to a lesser extent with health but not so much with family relationships. In Malta, poverty in the modality of economic insecurity, is not unrelated to psychological stress and strain. At the same time, most people in Malta find support in their family.

    Families in situations of poverty often experience multiple and inter-related problems. Conventional poverty or economic deprivation in the family is accompanied by physical and mental health problems, disability and stress. New forms of poverty in the family are manifest in the incidence of drug addiction, substance abuse, AIDS, physical abuse, domestic violence and economic difficulties.

Welfare mix

Evaluation of social services

    When in need of a special type of help, clients were in the main sent to a special centre for care, in some cases they were given financial aid, received a home visit by a professional or a voluntary worker. Six in ten were pleased with the help offered, some others were quite happy and only the very few were totally unsatisfied with the service. More concretely, the greatest assistance primarily came from Health Centres and to a lesser extent from Social Security, followed by the Centre for Social Work, Church parishes, organisations or movements, and other private centres or associations. Additional assistance should preferably be of a financial nature, though a few others request to receive help from professionals or voluntary workers.
 

Evaluation of state welfare

    Most respondents in Malta think that the education and health services of the state compare well with similar services in other European countries. In fact, twenty-six percent find state education and thirteen percent health services and social security better in Malta than generally in Europe. Although less than three in ten think that social security and social services are inferior, similar proportions are not so sure, suggesting a measure of uncertainty about the quality of these services. There is no doubt, however, that in the opinion of most Maltese respondents, relative to other European countries, public transport and the public service leave much to be desired.

    In the current situation, the majority think that the government is addressing sufficient funds for health services, the elderly, education, and retirement pensions. It is not spending enough, however, to protect the environment, in the struggle against delinquency, in social housing and in benefits for the low income families. [Table 2]
 
 

Table 2 Citizens’ assessment of state social spending

Source:  Social Welfare Survey, Malta (Abela 1996).
 

 Joint responsibilities

  Respondents were asked to identify the agents they deem to be responsible for the protection of a series of citizens’ rights and the protection of vulnerable groups in society. The majority think that the state has the greatest responsibility for the provision of health services, education and work and to a lesser extent for housing and social assistance. The family has the greatest responsibility for nutrition. The individual is held responsible mainly for friendship and free-time and to a lesser extent for adequate accommodation, work and food.  The onus for housing is equally assigned to the individual and the state but less to the family, social institutions or private agencies. A measure of responsibility, however much limited, is given to civil society for the protection of those in need, health services, work, food, education, social life and leisure. Overall, major areas of welfare are still attributed to the state, whereas personal social services are the joint responsibility of individuals, families, self-help groups and the state in civil society.

    The state in held responsible to protect, in descending order of importance, vulnerable social groups of homeless people, the unemployed, the economically deprived, refugees, immigrants, mentally and physically disabled, ex-convicts, the elderly, abused children and women, and to a lesser extent drug addicts and alcoholics, unmarried mothers and AIDS patients.  Joint responsibility is given to the state, non-government organisations and the family for the protection of  the elderly, abused children and women, substance abusers, unmarried mothers and AIDS patients. The family has greatest responsibility for the elderly, unmarried mothers, drug addicts and alcoholics. Non-government organisations are mostly responsible for battered wives, abused and neglected children, drug addicts and alcoholics, unmarried mothers, the disabled, AIDS patients, prison fellowship and refugees. [Table 3]

Table 3. Responsibility for the protection of social rights

Welfare reform

Conclusion

References