From time immemorial societies have attempted in various ways to shelter people against social and economic adversities. These efforts have mostly tried to meet urgent needs for subsistence and to provide against contingencies. The definition of 'needs' and 'contingencies', and the exact nature of arrangements to address them have differed from one society to another and have evolved over time. These arrangements reflect not only the values, beliefs and customs of a people but also their economic systems, social structures and political institutions. The arrangements a society makes to meet the essential subsistence needs and contingencies of its members constitute its social security system. Historically people have looked to their families, clans, tribes, communities, religious groups and authorities - lords, chiefs and kings - to meet their needs for social security. But the processes of industrialization and urbanization that have swept the world over the past two hundred years have profoundly affected social security arrangements everywhere. The origins of the modern system of social security go back to the late nineteenth century in Europe but it was only in the three decades following the Second World War that it developed its characteristic features. This system, which is prevalent in the industrial market economies, is referred to here as the classical model of social security. The establishment of communist regimes, first in the Soviet Union and then, after the Second World War, in other countries in Eastern and Central Europe, brought in its wake a radically different political and economic system. Political power was monopolized by the communist party while most of the productive assets and property were taken over by the state. The communist countries developed their own distinctive system of social security referred to here as the socialist model. The collapse of the communist regimes in Europe after 1989 led to various attempts to transform the political and economic system in these countries into a democratic and capitalist system modeled on the Western countries. These changes required parallel changes in social security systems. Most of the erstwhile communist countries are still in a transitional phase: The emergent social security systems of these countries may thus be described as the transition model. The developing countries display a vastly greater diversity in their political systems and economic structures than is found in the two groups discussed above. There is perhaps even greater diversity in their social security systems. The economic differences among developing countries are recognized in various classifications employed by international agencies such as middle-income (upper and lower), low-income and least-developed countries. Despite these differences, the great majority of these countries share the characteristics of widespread absolute poverty, extensive under- or unemployment, limited industrialization and dualistic economic structures. For these reasons and in conformity with current parlance, these countries are referred to as developing countries and their social security system as the developing model. The classical model countries have relatively high per capita incomes and most of their labour force is in wage employment. Government expenditure and public social security expenditure form a relatively high proportion of GDP, although there are significant inter-country variations (table I). The transition countries have relatively low per capita incomes but a high proportion of their labour force work as wage employees. Government expenditure accounts for a high proportion of GDP, not very different from that in the industrial countries. In comparison with per capita income, social security expenditure constitutes a relatively high proportion of GDP (table II). These features are essentially a legacy of their communist past. As noted above, the situation in developing countries shows far greater diversity. In general, the middle-income countries have a higher proportion of the labour force in wage employment and they allocate a higher proportion of GDP to public social security expenditure than the low-income countries. With regard to social security expenditure, however, the Latin American and Asian middle-income countries present contrasting patterns (table III). The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the central features of the four models of social security referred to above. The focus is on the meaning of social security, the coverage provided and the institutions and financing of social security in different contexts. In the light of this analysis, the paper first explores different approaches to providing a modicum of social security to the entire population in developing countries. The next section discusses the evolution and key characteristics of the classical model of social security. This is followed by a similar analysis of the communist and transitional models of social security. The following section turns to the situation in developing countries, emphasizing some of the more successful experiences. The paper concludes with a discussion on ways of meeting the priority social security needs of the excluded majority in poor countries. Given the vast scope of the themes covered in the paper, the emphasis is on the big picture - the essentials of different models of social security - with the inevitable omission of supporting arguments, qualifications and details
