Hallo Arvydas

thanks for the question. I think you´re absolutely right to point towards social security as one of the more important "traveling ideas". I´d add that from the perspective of political sociology the emergence of social politics (that is not only social rights but also a (varying) levels of social security) have been a reaction to emerging market economies (or if you will: capitalism). In some cases (e.g. Germany) social security programs were implemented to "bribe" workers and prevent socialist or communists parties to gain ground. 

I think it is also important to note that even in European countries welfare states differed (cf. Esping-Andersens "Worlds of Welfare Capitalism) quite fundamentally. Globalizing social security therefore is not synonymous with providing "a" model for the welfares state but rather offer different examples 

With regard to Asia it becomes clear that 'classical' welfare states have lost much of their appeal which could render social security to be indeed on of the last eurocentric phenomena. However, even if Asian countries reject european-sytel social security solutions, policymakers in Asia will still have to find ways to deal with rising inequality and social risk (e.g. old age). In this sense, I´d rather say that social security has the potential to becoming a "global issue".

Best, Alex

Never forget industrial relations. All the institutional building of collective agreements and participation of workers has a strong European accent too. 

There is, of course, considerable diversity amongst the countries of Europe, including (especially) their social policies.  Social Security programs require considerable levels of government funding, and recent experience has taught us that although many European countries are in favor of Social Security, the issue that distinguishes them is whether or not they are willing to run a (large) deficit to support these payments.  They may all agree on the desirability of Social Security, but they profoundly disagree as to whether or not deficits should be incurred to finance these programs.  What lessons should we draw from this conundrum?  It is easy enough to be in favor of "generous" policies, but having the wherewithal to support them is much more difficult to arrange.  Specifically, what is needed is an Industrial/Economic Strategy that facilitates prosperity, so that a tax base is available from which the monies to support Social Security, can be collected.  This has proven to be a much more difficult task than simply being "idealistic" and making promises.  The same lesson can be drawn regarding other policies.  Most countries have "idealistic" programs somewhere in their Public Policy Agenda.  However, many (most?) of them are not fully (or even partially) implemented, either because funding is lacking, OR other infrastructure is needed (to make implementation feasible), and this is also lacking.  To do a thorough analysis of this issue, one would need to chart the entire policy agenda of each country, and then compare  them in terms of money spent and results achieved.  This would be "the best policy analysis of all time," but it would be a vast undertaking.  Good Luck!

I very much doubt that this still is a phenomenon in Europe at all (and not an historical residue)...'Austerity' is the noveau topique du jour in Europe...so this may be the new europocentric phenomenon in the world...

In terms of financing, the US system can be thought of as more of a publically held private insurance company, in that it is not allowed to deficit spend. (The big difference versus a private company is that the contribution (e.g. tax) is compulsory and also that you don't have a "contract" ensuring no future benefit cuts. On the other hand, private companies can go bankrupt and can't pool the risk as effectively.)

US Social Security contributions (e.g. payroll taxes) are specifically earmarked into a Social Security trust fund to be used in paying Social Security benefits. By Social Security, I mean Old-age Survivors and Disability Insurance, which might not include some European programs Americans would refer to as "welfare" rather than "insurance" (The US system sharply distinguishes the 2, while I think the term "social insurance" globally can include both). Basically, the US system is partially a response to the failure of the private market (including  life insurance companies) to provide economic security prior to 1935. Not sure how private life insurance companies/the private market does in countries without government social insurance circa 2016, but that might be one way to think of this--in the absence of government, can the private market fill the need or will the private market fail?  

Citizens' social security is an important social element institutionally organized within the system of public institutions and a key element of the model of the social market economy. Certain formulas of the social market economy have existed for several dozen years in many countries around the world. It is important that a specific national economy, effectively functioning according to the model of social market economy, is efficiently managed in order not to lead to a large debt of the state's public finance system. Unfortunately, in the context of the current economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, the scale of applied anti-crisis state intervention is so high that the level of public debt and budget deficit has been increased to such a high level that the generated debt of the state's public finance system will be repaid by the society for many years to come in good economic conditions, as long as this economic prosperity occurs.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The dying native European nations can also be described as europocentric phenomena.