Constructing Policy Networks: Social Assistance Reform in the Czech Republic

Abstract

Czech social insurance and family transfers experienced fundamental reform in 1995 but Czech social assistance benefits still lack comprehensive change. This article explains the delay in Czech social assistance reform by appling policy network studies in a postcommunist context. Although few organizations perticipate in the Czech social assistance policy network, they are divided: they lack the common interests and exchangable resources necessary to create dialogue and compromise. The organizations of disabled citizens are the only interest group active in the policy network, with the operators of state social care institutions their primary opponents. In the late 1990s, this already fragmented issue network suffered further division when the EU entered as a powerful network actor with another set of policy goals. Until the policy network structure facilitates more dialogue and consensus‐building, hopes for comprehensive social assistance reform will linger unfulfilled.

Keywords:

• Social policy
• Social Assistance
• Czech Republic

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on research conducted in the Czech Republic during the 2000–2001 academic year and funded generously by a J. W. Fulbright grant. I am grateful to Merike Blofield and four anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article and for the Pew Younger Scholars Graduate Fellowship, which supported me while I wrote.

Notes

^aSee, for example, Parlament České Republiky, Poslanecká Sněmovna. Stenografický Zápis 31. Schůze, 26. Května 1995;⟨http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1993ps/stenprot/031schuz/31‐4.html⟩ (accessed September 2001).

^bFor reviews of the policy network literature, see Marsh, David. The Development of the Policy Network Approach. In Comparing Policy Networks; Marsh, David, Ed; Open University Press: Philadelphia, 1998; 1–17; and Daugbjerg, Carsten. Policy Networks Under Pressure: Pollution Control, Policy Reform and the Power of Farmers; Ashgate: Aldershot, 1998; 18–37.

^cFor a noteworthy exception, see Knoke, David; Broadbent, Jeffrey; Pappi, Franz Urban; Tsujinaka, Yutaka, Comparing Policy Networks. Labor Politics in the US, Germany, and Japan, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.

^dSee, for example, Mishra, Ramesh. Globalization and the Welfare State; Edward Elgar Publishers: Northampton, MA, 1999.

^eSee, for example, Alber, Jens; Standing, Guy. Social Dumping, Catch‐up or Convergence? Europe in a Comparative Global Context. Journal of European Social Policy 2000, 10(2), 112.

^fSee discussion in Daugbjerg, Carsten. Policy Networks Under Pressure: Pollution Control, Policy Reform and the Power of Farmers; Ashgate: Aldershot, 1998, 21–22.

^gSee discussion in Peters, Guy. Policy Networks: Myth, Metaphor and Reality. In Comparing Policy Networks; Marsh, David, Ed.; Open University Press: Philadelphia; 1998, 21–32.

^hSee, for example, the collection of essays in Marsh, David, Ed. Comparing Policy Networks; Open University Press: Philadelphia; 1998.

ⁱThis is in contrast to the 47–53% of total government expenditures (and 19% of GDP) consumed by overall social spending during the 1980s. See Kroupová, Alena; with Huslar, Ondřej. Children at the Turning Point: Economic Reform and Social Policy in Czechoslovakia. In Children and the Transition to the Market Economy: Safety Nets and Social Policies in Central and Eastern Europe; Cornia, Giovanni Andrea, Sipos, Sándor, Eds.; Avebury: Aldershot, 1991; 149–177.

^jFor more on Czech pensions, see Potůček, Martin. The Czech Social Reform After 1989—Concepts and Reality. Societal Changes and Social Policy Responses Conference, Annual Conference of the Research Committee 19 on Poverty, Social Welfare and Social Policy of the International Sociological Association, Prague, Czech Republic, September 9–12, 1999; unpublished manuscript; 16–19; and Müller, Katharina. The Political Economy of Pension Reform in Central‐Eastern Europe; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1999.

^kFor more on state social support reform, see Kepková, Michaela, Ed. Státní Sociální Podpora (Vznik a vývoj systému);Socioklub: Prague, 1997.

^lInterviews with officials at the Czech Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. All interviews referred to in this article were conducted in Prague between January and June of 2001 and all interviewees were assured anonymity to protect them and encourage candor. To provide perspective on their comments, I have indicated their general affiliation.

^mNonstate social service providers, however, remain largely unorganized, without frequent coordination of their demands. This weakens their position as they sometimes work against each other or overwhelm MPSV officials with many particular and different requests. Since they do not form a cohesive organizational front, they are not treated as key actors in the policy network. This decision is based on information gathered from interviews with officials at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.

ⁿAlthough there are, certainly, exceptions to this observation and some instances of mutual support and information sharing among state on nonstate bodies. Matoušek, Oldřich. Ústavní Péče: Druhé, Rozšiřené a Přepracované Vydání;SLON: Prague, 1999; 154.

^oInterview with official in the Office of the Government.

^pIn the late 1980s, the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs estimated that 6% of the population was disabled and relied on state social care. The VVZPO suggests a much higher estimate of handicapped citizens at 12% of the Czech population. See Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Czechoslovakia. In Social Welfare in Socialist Countries; Dixon, John, Macarov, David, Eds; Routledge: London and New York, 1992; 87; and Government Board for People with Disabilities. National Plan of Actions for the Handicapped Persons [sic]: Plan of Events for the Period II/1992–1994; Office of the Government of the Czech Republic: Prague, 1992; 7.

^qRespondents were asked to rate, on a scale of one to ten, the legitimacy of different social groups' claims for state benefits. Ten indicates the highest level of entitlement and one the least right to benefits. On average, citizens rated disabled people at almost 8.5, a high level of entitlement. Pensioners and households with children were ranked between 7 and 7.5. In contrast, those not willing to work were, on average, rated as one, while immigrants and the Romany population were between 2 and 2.5. Rabušic, Ladislav; Tomáš Sirovátka. Czech Welfare State and Its Legitimacy; N.p: Brno, Czech Republic, n.d.

^rInterview with official at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.

^sInterview with Member of Parliament, also a member of the Social Policy and Health Committee.

^tInterview with Member of Parliament, also a member of the Social Policy and Health Committee.

^uInterview with official at Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.

^vInterviews with officials at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and a representative of an organization for the disabled.

^wBenefit amounts depended on which of the four legislatively‐defined “dependency levels” the recipient occupied. Dependency levels would be determined by consultation with physicians and local social workers. Průša, Ladislav. Nový Model Financování Sociálních Služeb (2). Sociální Politika 1998, 24(2), 5–6.

^xBefore 1997, the EU gained policy network presence only indirectly through its funding of domestic social service projects. The Social Welfare Initiative Fund (SWIF), housed in and initiated by the MPSV, administered three rounds of grants from EU Phare funds. Grants went to civic associations and charities promoting social care services and training of social workers. This program improved the quality and strengthened the network of nonprofit, nonstate social service providers, introducing potential social assistance network participants. However, these groups still remained fragmented and weak network actors. National Education Fund. SWIF—Social Welfare Initiative Fund, ⟨http://www.nvf.cz/swif/gb/info_gb.htm⟩ (accessed May 2001); and interview with Researcher at the Research Institute of Labor and Social Affairs.

^yInterviews with officials at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and with a Senator on the Senate Health and Social Policy Committee.

^zInterviews with officials at the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and with an academic expert on Czech social policy.