As mentioned in the previous chapter, this factor analysis, submitted for consideration to ISSA research bodies, was intended from the very beginning to serve as a tool for comparative studies. The idea was to accompany a descriptive presentation of a social security scheme with a brief survey of macro-sociological factors at work behind its creation and evolution, so as to make this ‘dynamic picture’ of the institution the object of comparison. The advantage of this approach was a better understanding of the significance, structure and functional operations of each scheme within its societal environment and hence a more precise comparative analysis. What was missing, however, was the capacity to measure the end product of the whole institutional machinery, in line with the ambitions of social engineering current at that time.

Comparing the social product of the institution

In a paper presented to the first Round Table Meeting on the Sociology of Social Security held in September 1966 in Evian (Rys, 1966), the suggestion was made to complete the macro-sociological factor analysis with a second stage of the study, whereby the working results of the institution would be compared against the social policy objectives of the government concerned and against the standards set up by the existing international law. In this way, and with the use of appropriate indices, the study was to reveal specific trends in the evolution of the institution at the international level.

The plan for this second stage was based on the assumption that in order to ensure comparability, the study should be limited to social insurance only. The working of the scheme should be described in terms of contingencies and groups of beneficiaries covered, and of financial techniques used; further analysis would be devoted to institutional structures and finally to the social product. This latter concept raised the question of how to measure the tangible results of social security operations consisting of income transfers and services in favour of specific population groups. It was clear from the beginning that expenditure on benefits in cash and in kind was not an absolute indicator; to obtain more significant information, it was necessary to ask questions, such as:

• • Are the benefits reaching the appropriate categories?

• • Are the entitled persons really in need of the benefit?

• • Do the benefits reach them in time?