Search the archive.

In dictionaries, redistribution is defined as “to alter the distribution of” something.2 This is a useful starting point: what follows is that income redistribution policies encompass all government interventions that alter the distribution of incomes, including those that affect the primary distribution of incomes. As argued in Part II of this volume, granting collective bargaining rights (or denying them) has consequences for the functional distribution of incomes and for wage inequality, as do minimum wages. However, governments alter the primary distribution of incomes in other, often even less visible ways. For instance, the liberalization of financial markets since the 1980s is widely believed to have contributed to a concentration of incomes at the top, and to a shift away from wages and towards profits (see Stiglitz, 2012; ILO, 2012). Likewise, trade liberalization has differential impacts on the incomes of various groups in society (see Jansen and Lee, 2007). Such a broad definition of redistribution underlines the fact that most government action has redistributive consequences. To gain support for unpopular decisions such as the opening of trade, governments sometimes try to compensate the losers and impose a corresponding tax on the winners (ibid.). At this stage, redistribution becomes more apparent since it directly alters the primary distribution of incomes. This direct intervention in the form of taxes and transfers is commonly at the heart of public debates over redistribution, simply because it is more visible, even though the impact can be minuscule when compared the original policy decision. For example, trade compensation schemes are commonly thought to redistribute less than 5 per cent of the gains from trade (ibid.: 75). The concept of fiscal redistribution captures these direct interventions that governments make through taxes and transfers. A key policy concern is often their net effect on income inequality, usually expressed as the change in a summary measure such as the Gini coefficient between the primary and secondary distribution. The impact can be further disaggregated into the direct effect of taxes and mandatory social contributions and the contribution of transfers (see section 6). Tax policies play a crucial role for both aspects: They determine how much resources are at the disposal of governments for social policies, but the structure of the tax code by itself has an impact on inequality. At one extreme, income taxes can be regressive, i.e. the tax rates are lower for those with higher incomes. An example for a tax that widens inequality is the ‘poll tax’, an equal lump sum paid by every resident. However, although the top marginal tax rates have fallen substantially across the industrialized world since the 1970s, modern tax systems are still typically progressive and tax rates increase with incomes. 3 The result is that the rich pay (or are expected to pay) a greater share of their income as taxes, and that inequality after taxes is lower than before taxes. Between these two models lie distribution-neutral regimes with flat tax rates, where everybody pays the same proportion of her or his income in tax.

Fiscal redistribution is defined as the reduction in income inequality, brought about by government via taxes and transfers. Their findings indicate that only in countries characterized as young democracies do elections exert a positive impact on fiscal redistribution.

Should "Social Security" be capitalized when referring a social security number or card in a sentence?

Technically it should be capitalized as it is a proper noun. However, it is often not in everyday writing because it’s easier to write in lower case and anyone reading it would still understand.

“He got it,” Bob Ball says, smiling broadly. “He grasped the core idea of wage-based social insurance—that we earn the right to benefits, and that we ensure ourselves of access to those benefits when the time comes by being part of a larger pool. We’re all in this together. That’s the whole idea behind social security, lower case or caps.”

Capitalize Social Security in referring to the U.S. system. Lowercase generic uses: Is there a social security program in Sweden?

Those of us that want to pay attention to the way we write and do not want to appear careless or sloppy, might find ourselves confused at times in regards to proper capitalization of certain words and phrases. It’s true that some phrases present a challenge, as depending on the context of their use, they may or may not need to be written with an upper case letter, when used in a sentence. This becomes even more difficult, in the case of phrases, which are a group of words, often used in conjunction to describe something. One of the most common examples is the phrase “social security”. So, should social security be capitalized? The quick answer – this depends on the context in which the phrase is used.

Is “Social Security” Capitalized?

5 Social security as poverty alleviation and social protection programmes

Ideally, social security is a permanent social welfare structure which aims at a piecemeal and steady incremental improvement in the quality and standard of living of the citizenry. There is no gainsaying the fact that, in most developing communities such as Nigeria, there is a causal relationship between the absence of social security on the one hand, and poverty, on the other. However, the government initiatives which focus on temporary or permanent poverty eradication, are not social security measures, but are transient steps taken to form a suitable foundation on which social security programmes may be based. For example, in 2004 a survey of policies and interventions of various administrations on issues of poverty revealed 28 federal projects and programmes with poverty-reduction aims.73 These include community banks; the Family Support Programme; the National Directorate of Employment; the Peoples' Bank; Better Life for Rural Women; and the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure. These are some of the programmes that were established to address various manifestations of poverty, such as unemployment, lack of access to credit and rural and gender dimensions of poverty.

The operations of the various social security programs in the United States dealing with long-term risks continued their upward trend during 1955. The operations of the short-term risks programs, of course, will fluctuate from year to year. This review of the year 1955 first gives the major legislative developments at both Federal and State levels and then gives general details of the operating experience. For these purposes, the term "social security" includes all governmentally administered programs except those established specifically for government employees. Not included, however, are the various workmen's compensation programs since these are so largely administered by insurance companies and are reviewed elsewhere.

The operations of the various social security programs in the United States dealing with long-term risks continued their upward trend during 1955. The operations of the short-term risks programs, of course, will fluctuate from year to year. This review of the year 1955 first gives the major legislative developments at both Federal and State levels and then gives general details of the operating experience. For these purposes, the term "social security" includes all governmentally administered programs except those established specifically for government employees. Not included, however, are the various workmen's compensation programs since these are so largely administered by insurance companies and are reviewed elsewhere.

When I suggested this definition at Montreal, one of the South American delegates, while welcoming the form of the definition, said that he would prefer to regard it as a definition of " Social Insurance" rather than of " Social Security." The latter term for him included minimum wage and factory legislation, laws authorizing or regulating collective bargaining, and measures to give employment. I answered that I felt the need of a term distinguishing between measures of general application to make society healthy and measures to protect the individual against the risks that would still remain. *4" Social Security " seemed the best term to use for the latter class of measures as a whole, so that " social insurance " could be used as one method only of Social Security, involving compulsion, benefits as of right and contributions by the insured persons themselves. This is in accord with the nomenclature originally adopted by the United States. There the provision of income during unemployment, being financed in niost States by the employers without employee contributions, is described as " unemployment compensation " (on the analogy of workmen's compensation for industrial accident and disease), while the provision for old age and survivors (financed by equal contributions of employees and their employers) is described as " old age and survivors insurance." Both are included in " Social Security." In Britain bodies like Political and Economic Planning, which in giving evidence to my Committee wished to abandon direct contributions by the beneficiaries, also avoided the term " social insurance," as implying such contributions

When I suggested this definition at Montreal, one of the South American delegates, while welcoming the form of the definition, said that he would prefer to regard it as a definition of " Social Insurance" rather than of " Social Security." The latter term for him included minimum wage and factory legislation, laws authorizing or regulating collective bargaining, and measures to give employment. I answered that I felt the need of a term distinguishing between measures of general application to make society healthy and measures to protect the individual against the risks that would still remain. *4" Social Security " seemed the best term to use for the latter class of measures as a whole, so that " social insurance " could be used as one method only of Social Security, involving compulsion, benefits as of right and contributions by the insured persons themselves. This is in accord with the nomenclature originally adopted by the United States. There the provision of income during unemployment, being financed in niost States by the employers without employee contributions, is described as " unemployment compensation " (on the analogy of workmen's compensation for industrial accident and disease), while the provision for old age and survivors (financed by equal contributions of employees and their employers) is described as " old age and survivors insurance." Both are included in " Social Security." In Britain bodies like Political and Economic Planning, which in giving evidence to my Committee wished to abandon direct contributions by the beneficiaries, also avoided the term " social insurance," as implying such contributions

The term “social security” refers to many different programs across nations. In the United States, it narrowly refers to the social insurance programs that operate under the Social Security Act (U.S. Code, title 42). These programs mainly serve retired workers, people with disabilities, and their dependents. In European countries, it refers to a variety of income protection programs, including means-tested social welfare programs, contributory social insurance, and even health insurance. In less developed countries, it refers to the minimal government programs for the poor. The diversity of definitions makes crossnational comparison challenging. In this book, Tang and Midgley define social security broadly as “programmes that provide for the maintenance of income when specific contingencies arise or otherwise supplement the incomes of those who experience particular needs or demands on their income” (22). They argue that while form and structure of social security programs differ across nations, the basic underlying principles are the same; they provide income support for vulnerable people.

Security for workers has constantly been a primary concern of the International Labour Organisation. From 1919 to 1936 a series of international labour Conventions were adopted by the Conference laying down international standards for maternity insurance, workmen's compensation, sickness insurance, unemployment provision, and benefit rights of workers who change their country of residence. ' All these Conventions deal with some aspect of social security, although, as is pointed out in the article below, the term " social security " was not then in general use. During the war a demand grew for comprehensive social security schemes of the kind that have since been adopted by several countries. This demand found expression at the International Labour Conference in 1944, which included in the Declaration of Philadelphia " the extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to all in need of such protection and comprehensive medical care " among the aims to be furthered by the International Labour Organisation2 , and adopted Recommendations 3 designed to promote security of employment, security of income and security of the power to work-the three essentials, according to the author of the following article, of a social security scheme. This article, by an eminent French authority, gives an account of the experience of France in the development of social security.

IN MOST countries today social security schemes are being plan- ned or put into execution. Yet both term and idea are new. The Federal Social Security Act, voted by the United States Congress in 1935, appears to have given the term its first official status ; while the Beveridge Report, and subsequently the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia, mark the starting point of the remark- able process by which the idea of social security has spread through- out the world.

One of the most comprehensive typologies of social security provisions was developed by Kaim-Caudle (1973) in his study of social security in ten industrial countries. It was noteworthy because it included both statutory and non-statutory provisions. Drawing on an earlier analysis of the social divisions of welfare by Titmuss (1958), Kaim-Caudle argued that social security not only includes organized income maintenance services provided by the state, but also indirect benefits provided through fiscal measures, those provided by voluntary organizations as well as occupationally linked benefits provided by employers. Examples of non-statutory social security schemes include the payment of sickness benefits, retirement pensions, and a variety of ‘perks’ to workers by their employers and the provision of benefits by charitable societies. Although this attempt to expand the definition of social security and comprehensively incorporate a wide variety of income protection programmes is commendable, it has proved to be too broad and is not often cited today.

Although the term ‘social security’ is generally associated with income maintenance and support programmes, it was noted in the introduction to this book that social policy scholars in different parts of the world have used the term in different ways. In some countries, notably the United States, it is used narrowly to refer exclusively to the federal government’s social insurance retirement programme. Similarly, in many Anglophone developing countries where provident funds are the primary form of income maintenance, social security also has a very specific meaning. On the other hand, in Europe and in many other Western nations, the term is used broadly to connote a variety of income protection programmes including means-tested social assistance, contributory social insurance, employer mandates and demogrant or universal social allowances. In several continental European countries, it also refers to health insurance. The term has an even broader meaning in many Latin American countries, referring not only to income protection but to the provision of health care, social work services and even educational and recreational facilities.

Whether broad or otherwise, all definitions of social security have problems. A narrow definition suffers from the fact that it is unlikely to have universal application since it is likely to exclude some provisions that are known as social security in some countries. The broader approach, on the other hand, suffers from the weakness that it is too general to be of much use for comparative purposes. Of course, accounts of social security within specific countries often overcome the problem by formulating an operational definition based on local provisions. But definitions that seek to describe the general features and principles of social security are far more difficult to formulate. It is for this reason that many social policy scholars use the term loosely but nevertheless recognize the different ways it is defined in different national contexts.

As an initial matter, it is important to point out that the term "Social Security" in the United States refers to the government-run insurance program for older and disabled Americans.1 9 The term was first used when Congress passed the federal Social Security Act in 1935.20 Shortly after World War II, it became popular in Europe, introduced by the Beveridge Report that had the term "social security" in its title.21 This means-maybe somewhat remarkably-that Europe inherited the term from the United States. Still, it has an entirely different meaning in the United States than in Europe (where it generally refers to all schemes covering social risks).22 In the United States, pension and disability benefits are defined by federal Social Security statutory law, while all states have their own public sector pension statutes and a few states have state-provided disability plans. 23

In addition to Social Security, a large segment of the American populace receives employer-provided retirement and welfare benefits either under collective bargaining agreements or, more likely, through the unilateral and voluntary actions of employers (spurred on by vast tax subsidies for sponsoring such benefit plans). 24 The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)25 provides rules for the provision of such benefits, including rules for the protection of certain forms of pension funds from forfeiture. 26

Those of us who accuse the administration of inventing a Social Security crisis are often accused, in return, of do-nothingism, of refusing to face up to the nation’s problems. I plead not guilty: America does face a real crisis —but it’s in health care, not Social Security.

Well-informed business executives agree. A recent survey of chief financial officers at major corporations found that 65 percent regard immediate action on health care costs as “very important.” Only 31 percent said the same about Social Security reform.

Social security has also been defined with reference to different types of programmes and the different functions and goals of these programmes. This ‘operational’ approach to defining social security is less concerned with sociological or legal notions than with the actual income, health and other social service programmes provided by governments. Although social security programmes provide income, health and other social services, the term will be operationalized in this book to refer to income programmes and specifically to programmes that provide for the maintenance of income when specific contingencies arise or otherwise supplement the incomes of those who experience particular needs or demands on their incomes. The twin functions of income maintenance and income support are thus central to most operational definitions of social security. Typically, income maintenance and support is provided through the four major types of social security described in the introduction to this book, namely, social insurance, provident or savings funds, social assistance, employer mandates and social allowances.

However, these health institutions are not social security institutions. In addition, in recent years, a large part of the so-called atypical employment relationships have become part of the social security system, either through compulsory contributions and benefits, or optionally.

For someone aiming to move from the shadows into the main pack of contenders for his party’s nomination, it was a curious position for Cain to stake out, or at least to stake out in these rhetorical terms. The truth is that mainstream American political leaders rarely advocate for change by recommending the United States copy policies from other countries.

This book is about health care, not Social Security, and in no realm has American resistance to foreign policies and philosophies become more evident over time. Economically developed nations have many problems in common in the delivery, financing, and management of health services. They also confront similar disease patterns and technology advancements, with all the mixed blessings that come with the latter. Yet this shared experience and the interventions it has inspired have not influenced the formulation of U.S. health policy to a great extent. Despite urging from a number of experts, officials have typically neglected—indeed, they have often openly rejected—the lessons of comparative policy analysis in favor of uniquely American approaches to the task of health reform.