Evening star., 1936-05-03
BY JOHN C. HENRY.


- interest Americas belated ex-
pertinent in the fields OF So
- called social insurance.
As long ago as 1883 Germany
blazed a rough trail into the deli
cately complex maze of establishing
some measure of economic security
for its citizens. Haltingly but none
the less surely, virtually every other
nation Of Europe has moved toward
the same goal although in many
cases they sought their objectives by
new paths.
And so strongly has such national
responsibility become a part of the
consciousness of European peoples
today that not even the most violent
of political upheavals has been sufh-
cient to wipe out the social insurance
machinery of any one country. True.
It may be functioning with varying
degrees of efficiency, but functioning
1t is in countries of such contradic-
: tory political background as Fascist
Italy, Nazi Germany, communistic
Russia and democratic Britain, to say
nothing Of those under the stable
governments of Scandinavia and the
less stable governments of the Bal
lans.
Lasting Effects Seen in U. S.
In America, it required the soaring
effects of our greatest depression,
coupled with a major political over
turn. to arouse sufficient widespread
public support of such principles to
effect their adoption. From now on,
If We may honor the clues given us in
the history Of such movements in
Europe. we will experience years of
trial and error of uncertain admins
tration. criticism, partial failure and
numerous other ills-but never will we
see the theory of social responsibility
repudiated sufficiently to allow its re-
moval from among the obligations Of
government.
Volumes could be written on the
course Of social insurance in Europe,
but less detailed review will reveal
some of the high spots
Germany. pioneering in the field.
made its first step in the establish
ment of system of health and in
dustrial accident insurance, fashion,
ing its program after that already in
operation in the mining communities
of the nation. Insurance was made
compulsory, with both workers and
employers contributing to the fund.
Serious Consequences Neglected.
A shortcoming of this first law was
that it made provision only for dis
ability or illness up to 13 weeks du-
ration, leaving more serious misfor-
tunes outside its scope. AS a result,
there was enacted in the following
year, 1884, insurance legislation deal
ing with fatal industrial accidents
and those causing disability in excess
of 13 weeks. This system was sup
ported exclusively by employer con-
tributions.
Confined to industrial risks at a
time when mechanization of industry
was beginning to show actual develop
ment, this second venture attracted
more widespread attention than the
first. More persons were being in
jured as industry developed complexity
and the man-made machines occa
sionally turned on their creators In
the 1905 several European natiors
followed the example with their own
variations. Principal trend in this
movement was for the separation of
health and industrial accident risks,
with the latter making speedier prog
ress, and with the employer being
principal or sole support of the sys-
TENS.
In the slower developing field of
health insurance, two schools of
thought influenced the trend First
was the compulsory plan included in
the German system, second was VOL
!untary subsidized plan conceived in
Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and France
were among the few countries that fol-
lowed the Danish example, but France
Stree has shifted to the compulsory
theory in effect in all major industrial
countries of the continent.
Reich Had Old-Age Plan in 'S9.
In 1889 Germany again stepped
forth, this time in the field of old-age
insurance, program which ranks
with unemployment compensation as
the major provisions of our own social
security legislation.
' In brief, the German system was
truly one of insurance where eventual
benefits were based upon contributions,
the latter to be made by both employer
and employe. Originally, the law ap-
piled only to wage earnerS, but in 1911
complementary law was enacted to
10
than $4,000 per year.
Meanwhile. however, Denmark again
was pioneering a competing technique
in legislation enacted in 1891. In this
instance, the Danish system was one
of gratuitous pensions available only to
the deserving" old person and only
on proof that he had no other ade-
quate means of support. The latter
qualification, however, dealt only with
the individuals own resources and did
not raise the barrier against resources
of children or other family members.
Few nations chose to follow either
lead for almost decade. but in 1898
far-off New Zealand enacted a law
similar to the Danish plan, and with
OAAC oOdiG VI Vic CCLbu1 OIllcIS 16ll
line quickly.
Australia Followed in 1908.
In addition to Denmark and New
Zealand, those now having gratuitous
old-age pension laws, and the years
in which they were enacted, follow:
Australia, 1908; Canada, 1927;
France, 1905; Great Britain, 1908;
Greenland, 1926: Iceland, 1909; Irish
Free State, 1908; Newfoundland, 1911;
Norway, 1923; South Africa, 1928, and
Uruguay, 1919.
Following the German example of
contributory old-age insurance have
been:
Austria, 1927; Belgium, 1924; Bull
garia, 1924; Chile, 1924; Czechoslo-
vakia, 1924; France. 1910; Great Brit
ain, 1925; Greece, 1922; Hungary, 1928;
Italy, 1919; Luxemburg. 1911; Neither
lands, 1918 Poland, 1898; Portugal,
n.