The Impact of Decentralization on Social Policy

325 Pages·2002·0.97 MB·English

The Impact of
Decentralization
on Social Policy
E d i t e d b y
K T
ATALIN AUSZ
Local Government
and Public Service
Reform Initiative
THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL POLICY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM INITIATIVE
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE
Address
Nádor utca 11.
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary
Mailing address
P.O. Box 519
H-1357 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone
(36-1) 327-3104
Fax
(36-1) 327-3105
E-mail
[email protected]
Web Site
http://lgi.osi.hu/
First published in 2002
by Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative, Open Society Institute Budapest
© OSI/LGI, 2002
ISBN: 963 9419 34 6
TM and Copyright © 2002 Open Society Institute
Local Government
and Public Service
Reform Initiative
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Copies of the book can be ordered by e-mail or post from LGI.
Printed in Budapest, Hungary, May 2002.
Design & Layout by Createch Ltd.
ii
Local Government
and Public Service Reform Initiative
Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI), as one of the programs
of the Open Society Institute (OSI), is an international development and grant-giving
organization dedicated to the support of good governance in the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Newly Independent States (NIS). LGI seeks to fulfill its
mission through the initiation of research and support of development and operational
activities in the fields of decentralization, public policy formation and the reform of
public administration.
With projects running in countries covering the region between the Czech Republic
and Mongolia, LGI seeks to achieve its objectives through:
• development of sustainable regional networks of institutions and professionals
engaged in policy analysis, reform-oriented training and advocacy;
• support and dissemination of in-depth comparative and regionally applicable
policy studies tackling local government issues;
• support of country-specific projects and delivery of technical assistance to the
implementation agencies;
• assistance to Soros foundations with the development of local government, public
administration and/or public policy programs in their countries of the region;
• publication of books, studies and discussion papers dealing with the issues of de-
centralization, public administration, good governance, public policy and lessons
learned from the process of transition in these areas;
• development of curricula and organization of training programs dealing with
specific local government issues;
• support of policy centers and think tanks in the region.
Apart from its own projects, LGI works closely with a number of other international
organizations (Council of Europe, Department for International Development, USAID,
UNDP and the World Bank) and co-funds larger regional initiatives aimed at the support
of reforms on the subnational level. Local Government Information Network (LOGIN)
and Fiscal Decentralization Initiatives (FDI) are two main examples of this cooperation.
iii
THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL POLICY
iv
Contents
List of Contributors ..............................................vii
List of Tables and Figures....................................... ix
Preface....................................................................xv
1. The Impact of Decentralization
on Social Policy in Hungary,
Latvia and Ukraine ...........................................1
Klára Czike (cid:1) Balázs Krémer (cid:1) Katalin Tausz
2. The Impact of Decentralization
on Social Policy in Hungary...........................89
Balázs Krémer (cid:1) István Sziklai (cid:1) Katalin Tausz
3. Social Sector Development in Latvia............133
Linda Zivarte (cid:1) Dace Jansone
4. The Ukrainian Social Protection System
and the Methods of Governance...................197
Anatoliy Chemerys (cid:1) Andriy Lipentsev
Oksana Muzychuk (cid:1) Vira Tsypuk
Index...................................................................305
v
THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL POLICY
vi
List of Contributors
LATVIA
Dace Jansone—Assistant Professor, Vidzeme University College, Head of Department
of Political Science.
Linda Ziverte—M.Sc.Soc., University of Latvia, Faculty of Social Sciences, Head of the
Department of Social Work, Ph.D. student in sociology.
UKRAINE
Anatolij Chemerys—Ph.D. in Economics, Director, Lviv Branch of Ukrainian Academy
of Public Administration, Office of the President of Ukraine.
Andrij Lipentsev—Ph.D. in Economics, Deputy Director, Lviv Branch of Ukrainian
Academy of Public Administration, Office of the President of Ukraine.
Oksana Muzychuk—M.A. in Public Administration, Lecturer, Lviv Branch of Ukrainian
Academy of Public Administration, Office of the President of Ukraine.
Vira Tsypuk—Ph.D. Student in Sociology, Head of Informational Analytical Depart-
ment, Lviv Branch of Ukrainian Academy of Public Administration, Office of
the President of Ukraine.
HUNGARY
Klára Czike—Ph.D. student, ELTE Institute of Sociology.
Balázs Krémer—Ph.D., Budapest.
Katalin Tausz—Ph.D., Head of Department of Social Work and Social Policy, ELTE.
vii
THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL POLICY
viii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
List of Tables and Figures
TABLES
CHAPTER 1
Table 1.1: Pros and Cons of Decentralization ......................................16
Table 1.2: Ethnic Composition in Hungary, Latvia and Ukraine ........27
Table 1.3: Level of Urbanization in Hungary, Latvia and Ukraine.......29
Table 1.4: Structure of Sub-national Governance.................................29
Table 1.5: Trend of GDP 1989–1999 ..................................................34
Table 1.6: General Government Expenditure
Spent by Sub-national Bodies..............................................35
Table 1.7: Amount of ‘Own Source’ Revenues.....................................37
Table 1.8: Social Expenditure of Nyíregyháza City
Related to Total Expenditure................................................39
Table 1.9: Dates of Introduction of Acts Referring to Social Security,
Unemployment and Family Benefits in Latvia, Ukraine,
and Hungary and their Currently Valid Acts .......................42
Table 1.10: Number and Proportion of Pensioners................................43
Table 1.11: Total Employment, 1989–1998...........................................45
Table 1.12: Trend of Real Value of Wages 1989–1998 ...........................45
Table 1.13: Trend of Unemployment
in Latvia, Ukraine and Hungary..........................................45
Table 1.14: Rate of Fertility in the Central Eastern-European
Countries from 1980 to 1998..............................................49
Table 1.15: Types of Family Allowance at the End of the 1990s ............50
Table 1.16: Factors Influencing Family Allowances
at the End of the 1990s........................................................51
ix
THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZATION OF SOCIAL POLICY
Table 1.17: Features of Maternity Leave at the End of the 1990s...........52
Table 1.18: Main Features of Child-care Leave
at the End of the 1990s........................................................53
Table 1.19: Features of Maternity Benefits at the End of the 1990s.......53
Table 1.20: Main Features of Family Benefits at the End of the 1990s ....54
CHAPTER 2
Table 2.1: Macroeconomic Indicators (1989–1999) ............................93
Table 2.2: Consumer Price Indices by Main Group of Expenditure ......94
Table 2.3: Public Expenditures as % of GDP, 1990–1999 ..................95
Table 2.4: Rates of Economic Activity, 1990–1998 .............................96
Table 2.5: Number and Characteristics of the Unemployed ................97
Table 2.6: Changes in Poverty Rates.....................................................98
Table 2.7: Proportion of the Relatively Poor (under 50% of the
mean equivalent income) in Some Typical Groups..............98
Table 2.8: Number of Administrative Units as at 1 January 2000......102
Table 2.9: Non-profit Organizations Providing Welfare Services.......104
Table 2.10: Main Characteristic Features of Child Care Benefits:
Child Care Allowance (GYES), Child Care Fee (GYED),
Child Care Support (GYET) After 1998...........................109
Table 2.11: Real Value of Some Family Benefits...................................110
Table 2.12: Effectiveness of Poverty Reduction....................................110
Table 2.13: Number of Registered Children at Risk by Reason ...........111
Table 2.14: Revenues of Non-profit Organizations
by Source and Field, 1998.................................................112
Table 2.15: Number of Recipients of the Most Frequent
Types of Benefit..................................................................119
Table 2.16: Some Statutory Minima and Some Yardsticks
in Hungary, Monthly Sums...............................................123
Table 2.17: Social Provisions Related to the Subsistence
Minimum, 1991–1999......................................................123
x