Rights, rituals and resources: similarities and differences in welfare support for funerals

Dr Kate Woodthorpe Department of Social and Policy Sciences

Overview of paper today

•Background •Findings –Academic rationale –Previous research –Our research –3 welfare regimes –Intersecting themes –Implications –Conclusion

Academic rationale

• Comparisons between cultures underdeveloped in the area of death (Robben, 2004; Walter, 2005) • Little consideration given to political and economic dimension of post-mortem practices, particularly issues of affording a funeral • In capitalist and secular societies, increasing cultural diversity and individualism = more personalised and individualised post-mortem practices, which cost € £ $

Previous research

• UK: Drakeford (1998) found economic vulnerability linked to the need of mourners to respect the dignity and memory of someone.

• USA: Fan and Zick (2004) noted substantial economic vulnerability of widows and widowers in relation to funeral/burial costs.

• New Zealand: McManus and Shafer (2009) uncovered a “general lack of knowledge, misconceptions, inconsistencies and misinformation on what funerals are about”, as well as lack of awareness of benefit entitlement (p. 73).

Our research

• December 2011 – March 2012 • Independent academic research • Funded by Sun Life Direct (Axa owned UK based insurance company) • 2 parts: UK and international • Research team: Dr Kate Woodthorpe, Dr Christine Valentine, Dr Hannah Rumble, Caron Staley (CDAS manager)

The international research questions

• What models of social provision do other countries use for assisting those on low income with paying for a funeral?

• How do these models enable those concerned to lay their dead to rest in a customary, dignified and meaningful manner?

• How can the approaches of other countries inform the situation in the UK?

Methods

• Two questionnaires sent to academics and funeral directors in: – Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.

• Selection based on comparability as democratic and capitalist countries; convenience; language

Analysis

• Esping-Andersen’s (1990) welfare regime typology – liberal, corporatist and social democratic regimes • Based on three sets of criteria that reflect a country’s general approach to supporting citizens’ social rights: – The nature and strength of social protection given to citizens in light of the inequalities of the market place. – The balance of responsibilities between the state, the market, the community and families, and individuals. – The impact of each regime on the stratification of society and the distribution of wealth/resources and opportunities.

Liberal regimes

• Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States – Relatively modest levels of public expenditure on welfare – State encourages private and market-led forms of provision – State mainly provides targeted, means-tested, conditional assistance to which a certain amount of stigma is attached

Funeral provision in liberal regimes

• Minimal financial support in means-tested grants or loans; typically available at national and/or local level; claiming for such support tends to be stressful and subject to stigma. • Australia: depends on state; means-tested, grants, application – In SA if have less than $3000 [€2500] can apply • Britain: capped at £700 + burial/cremation, claiming process – average award £1200 [€1500] • US: state and county dependent, paid directly to funeral director – $800 to $1,400 [€650 to €1100] • Canada: the Canada Pension Plan, earnings-related scheme, – pays up to $2,500 [€2000]

Conservative Regimes

• Belgium, France, Germany, and Spain • High levels of social protection through insurance based welfare benefits provided by corporate bodies to which everyone encouraged to contribute. Supported and often augmented by the state. • Aim to strengthen civil society and limit the market through corporatism, or negotiation between key social partners representing the interests of business, workers and the state. • Emphasis placed on the role of the family, as well as the Church and labour associations, rather than on public services

Funeral provision in conservative regimes

• State tends to rely on most citizens having funeral cover through work based social or life insurance schemes or other type of pre-need insurance • Belgium: councils provide a means-tested grant of between unclaimed/homeless dead €400 and €600, funded through general taxation/ council tax, mainly for • France: 80% of the population subscribes to life insurance schemes. Cover will be lost if the person loses their job; then apply for social security, which is managed regionally by labour unions. • Germany: locally organized means-tested benefits of between €2,500 and €3,000 • Spain: availability of affordable insurance premiums and interest-free loans provided by funeral directors means the state is reluctant to step in at all

Social Democratic Regimes

Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden • State aims to reduce social divisions through providing extensive, universal benefits. • State plays the dominant role in social policy provision to provide a high standard of public services, effectively sidelining the private sector.

Funeral provision in social democratic regimes

Within this regime type partial state coverage is available for everyone regardless of need via some form of general taxation or insurance. Denmark: for all those born after 1957 the state provides a grant of up to 9,650 DKK [ €1300], the amount depending on any assets left by the deceased person.

The Netherlands: most people leave a plan and resources for cover their funeral, where there is not enough costs are covered by local councils or their equivalent with the aim of providing an appropriately dignified funeral Norway: Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service (NAV) will cover funeral expenses in the form of a means-tested funeral grant, which provides up to 20,652 NOK [ €2800] .

If the deceased person or bereaved family members have made no national insurance contributions then the funeral will be funded through direct taxation. Sweden: A burial tax and VAT on funerals are levied to provide such funding; for additional support local social services department covers the necessary costs, paid as a grant of between €1,000 and €4,000, subject to local variation

Intersecting themes

• Political economy of funerals and state support for funerals cannot be considered in a social vacuum.

• Shaped by – Culture – Politics – Local practice

Culture

• Cultural perceptions of citizenship, need and poverty • Extent to which citizenship emphasizes – individualism and self-reliance vs. – social solidarity and interdependency • Extent to which people prepare for death – including whether death openly discussed, levels of pre-planning, and a general awareness of the funeral options available. • Depends on whether the death of a citizen is considered a private or community event

Politics

• National approaches to funeral welfare reflect the relationship and balance of power between the state, the market and the individual/family • Political ideology of governing party • Involves a compromise (or tension) between market forces and the well-being of citizens – evermore important in the context of the current global financial crisis

Local practice

• Relationship between national/local government, and local policy and practice, play a key role in funeral welfare provision – all respondents reported substantial localised variation. • Disparity

within

countries reflects: – the lack of clarity, coherence and comprehensiveness of guidelines – the impact of local traditions – interpretation and negotiation between the various individuals involved (such as local government employees, funeral directors, bereaved survivors and other members of the community).

Implications: Liberal regimes

• A targeted, means-tested, conditional entitlement stigmatizes those who need to claim for help with funeral costs • This may encourage community/shared initiatives and pooling resources where there is greater emphasis on communalism • Relatively low take-up of pre-paid funeral schemes, though there are signs of such take-up increasing in Britain, Canada and the US

Implications: Conservative regimes

• Approach reflects an emphasis on civil society and community values, where citizens feel morally obligated to put aside money for their own funeral and, if necessary, pay for that of a family member • For the small number of people who do slip through the social insurance net, in some countries state funding may be difficult to obtain • However, local community support may be available and funeral directors are often prepared to help out, for example, through providing interest-free loans

Implications: Social Democratic regimes

• Countries in this regime type reflect a valuing of equality and social solidarity, with welfare regarded as an entitlement • Citizens do not tend to pre-plan/pay, except in the Netherlands where there is a culture of pre-planning for both end-of-life and post-mortem care • Death is more openly discussed, with Sweden moving in that direction

Conclusion

The most successful combination of culture, politics and local practice is one that includes: – Cultural emphasis on civil society and community values which foster a sense of social solidarity. – A preparedness on the part of the state to implement policy designed to reduce social divisions through a system of universal benefits for funerals provided by various forms of general taxation; and place curbs on market forces to prevent excessive funeral cost rises.

– Culture of preparing for death that encourages a sense of responsibility for funding one’s own, or one’s family member’s funeral.

– A greater understanding of cost of living and proportion of income expected to be spent on funeral costs, and how that cost may be curtailed if necessary.

The future

• Extended research • Cost of funerals • Systematic data generation • Eastern Europe and beyond • Cost of living • Religion and ethnicity as an intersecting theme

References

• • • • • • Drakeford, M. (1998) ‘Last rights? Funeral Poverty and Social Exclusion’,

Journal of Social Policy,

27 (4): 507-524.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) Polity Press).

The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism

(Cambridge: Fan, J. X. and Zick, C. D. (2004) ‘The economic burden of health care, funeral and burial expenditures at the end of life’,

Journal of Consumer Affairs,

38 (1): 35-55.

McManus, R. and Shafer, C. (2009) Report to BRCSS Network.

Attitudes to Funeral Costs in New Zealand, f

inal Robben, A. (ed) (2004)

Death, Mourning and Burial: a cross-cultural reader

(Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).

Walter, T. (2005) ‘Mortuary variation in three ways to arrange a funeral: Mortuary variation in the modern West’,

Mortality

, 10 (3): 173-192.

Thanks for your time today

Any questions?

[email protected]

www.bath.ac.uk/cdas