Must be by statute---includes private action pursuant to a statutory requirement that serves social security ends, but excludes action taken pursuant to an individual or collective employment contract.

Second, the question is whether social security is strictly limited to public schemes. As discussed at the start of this chapter, acknowledgement of state responsibility for income protection was at the root of social security, thus stressing the importance of public responsibility. Of course, income protection can also be organised by other parties, including employers, family members, mutual funds and private funds. This raises the question whether such provisions are also to be counted as social security. This question has become more relevant now that in many countries the role of the state is being reduced and some public tasks are privatised, including parts of social security.

There is nothing against including such forms in the concept of social security, for instance, for calculating expenditure on social issues or income redistribution. However, in view of the normative dimension the issue is different, since again the question has to be answered whether the state has fulfilled its obligations. Because of the impact upon the legal position of the persons concerned, it still makes a very important difference as to who is responsible for income redistribution.

The normative dimension requires that the term ‘social security’ is limited to those forms of income protection that are defined by statutory law giving the core obligations to be fulfilled. Within this context private parties can also be given the task of providing an income. For instance, if the employer has a statutory obligation to continue to pay wages to ill employees, this obligation and payment may be considered as social security. If, however, the employer pays the employee money on the basis of an individual or collective employment contract, this is outside the scope of social security.