The case for universal provision of basic social services rests, first and foremost, on the premises that all humans should be empowered to live lives they value and that access to certain basic elements of a dignified life ought to be delinked from people’s ability to pay.
and poor households receive. Intergenerational transmission of capabilities such as education within families can perpetuate the benefits in the long run. Universal policies also promote social solidarity.2 The case for universal provision of basic social services then rests, first and foremost, on the premises that all humans should be empowered to live lives they value and that access to certain basic elements of a dignified life ought to be delinked from people’s ability to pay. The UN Secretary-General’s 2013 report, “A Life of Dignity for All”, states that one of the prerequisites for the post-2015 sustainable development agenda is a “vision of the future firmly anchored in human rights and universally accepted values and principles, including those encapsulated in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Millennium Declaration.”3 The September 2010 Millennium Development Goal Summit outcome document states, “promoting universal access to social services and providing social protection floors can make an important contribution to consolidating and achieving further development gains.”4 A commitment to universal provision of social services requires a profound societal and political decision. It reflects on the nature of society that people want. While ways of delivering such services may vary with circumstances and country context, common to all successful experiences is a single idea: The state has the primary responsibility to extend social services to the entire population, in a basic social contract between people and their state. At a more policy-oriented level, looking at budgets alone is insufficient; how and when they are deployed are equally critical. More resources may well be required to extend basic social services to all, but modest investments at the right time can go a considerable way in reducing vulnerability. Budgets need to join legal and other measures to equalize access to services and opportunities.
Universal or targeted coverage Recent decades have seen a global shift in the politics of social spending, changing the emphasis from development to poverty alleviation.5 As a result, there has been greater stress 86 | HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2014
on targeting social spending for the poor rather than for all. Targeted services were considered more efficient, less costly and more effective in ensuring redistribution. But historical evidence presents a more nuanced picture. Universal provision has in many instances been associated with greater poverty reduction, greater redistribution and lower inequality, something of a paradox since targeted benefits are theoretically more redistributive.6 A key factor is that when benefits are narrowly targeted, the middle class and elites are less willing to fund them through taxes. If provision is universal, however, elites are more willing to fund services, and some of the inefficiencies in redistribution are offset by the larger pool of available funds.7 In the European welfare states, universal coverage of social insurance has been driven by the expectations and demands of the middle class.8 Similarly, universal provision of education and health care in the Nordic countries was sustainable because of the high quality of education and health care from which all could benefit. This ensured that the middle class was willing to fund their provision with taxes. Because of this, there have been calls for a politics of solidarity—engaging universalist principles to create a stake for the middle class in social provision and thus to build a coalition between the poor and the nonpoor.9 Targeting can undermine such solidarity, giving rise to two-track systems: underfunded low-quality services for the poor and better quality commercial services for the middle classes and the rich. Universalist principles in social policy have been known and practised in several countries for years. Aspirationally, they have been included in country constitutions and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But many countries, in different geographic areas and at all stages of development, have yet to commit to universal provision of basic social services. An enduring concern has been finding adequate resources to fund universal provision. For example, there is a tacit assumption that economic growth producing higher incomes is a prerequisite for universal health care. Worries about reduced fiscal space have heightened since the 2008 financial crises—even in developed countries—leading to austerity measures.10 Yet income alone need not constrain universal social policies. While resource