Social Policy Discourse 2500 words degree essay

Social Policy Task

The purpose of this task is to provide an in-depth examination of social policy in relation to welfare provision.  This is achieved by offering discussion on the theoretical tenets on which social welfare policy rest and secondly relating such foundations to practical implementation in Britain since 1945.

Universalism is an integral component in social policy discourse.  The concept has its foundation on two fundamental premises.  Firstly, there exist universal welfare requirements for human beings that are based on the natural rights of all.  Secondly, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to ensure that these natural requirements are met (Alcock; 2003).  Above all, in the modern liberal democratic context the primary actor capable of providing for such comprehensive welfare provision is the state.  As such, universalist concepts are heavily reliant upon the states ability to offer effective universal welfare provision.  Thus, the manner and characteristics of universal welfare provision historically tend to differ on the basis of political ideology (George and Wilding; 1994).

The term Keynesian welfare state is derived from the assertions of liberal economist John Maynard Keynes, whose theoretical assumptions were hugely influential in the decades following the Second World War (Lowe; 2005).  Keynes was primarily concerned with the role the state should play in the economic and social processes of the nation.  Moreover, although his primary assertions were compiled in relation to British social and economic policy they nonetheless gained prominence throughout Western Europe and North America.  Above all, Keynes viewed the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s as wholly abhorrent and totally avoidable providing that lassez faire economics were curtailed and proactive government intervention increased (Lowe; 2005).  For Keynes, government was capable of providing widespread economic impetus if it became directly involved in certain industrial sectors of the economy.  Secondly, through the use of public spending schemes aimed at universal welfare provision, government could not only reduce the likelihood of unemployment but also systematically set about establishing comprehensive social welfare provision (Glennerster; 2007).

These two concepts dominated the political outlook of post war Britain.  In 1945, the election of the first majority Labour government in British political history provided the necessary ideological vehicle through which theoretical Keynesian assertions could be translated into practice.  As such, from 1945-1951 the Labour governments of Clement Atlee set about establishing a mixed economy capable of providing the first universal welfare system in British history (Lowe; 2005).   This ‘welfare state’ comprised comprehensive schemes of national insurance, unemployment and sickness benefit, and old age pensions.   Finally, the “jewel in the crown” came in the form of the countries first universally available National Health Service (Dorey, 1995; p.14).  Although the Conservatives were returned to power in 1951 they did nothing to reverse the welfare legislation enacted under Labour. The post war Atlee governments had thus laid the basis on which British social policy was to rest for thirty years.  From the early 1950s a political consensus emerged between the two major political parties on the need for government to take an active directional role in leading nationalised industries and wholeheartedly commit to the premise of universal welfare provision (Lowe; 2005).  Thus, it was on such ideological foundations that the British post war consensus in relation to Keynesian welfare was fundamentally based.

The Keynesian welfare state was universally viewed as the most effective method of addressing the woeful inequality that had plagued British society before 1945.  Indeed, the onset of the ‘affluent society’ in conjunction with universal welfare provision did go a long way to redressing the obvious imbalances that had prevailed previously.  During the 1950s and early 1960s the British economy grew at a steady consistent rate allowing for greater employment potential for all, including the most impoverished in society (Finlayson; 1994).  Moreover, the advent of universal welfare provision prescribed that the state would now provide for the requirements of all on the basis of need, not the ability to utilise personal financial reserves.  As such, the welfare state was heralded as a champion in effectively addressing the concerns of social inequality and poverty in Britain (Glennerster; 2007).  However, during the 1960s this conception was tested by a number of empirical studies in relation to the question of poverty in Britain.

Above all, these studies challenged the belief that the welfare state had virtually eradicated poverty in Britain.  In contrast, it was claimed that poverty and inequality were still a consistent feature for many people across the country.  Firstly, empirical evidence showed that in relation to issues such as wealth distribution and social conditions, the welfare state had done little to alleviate the problems encountered by some in society and had this created an underclass that did not enjoy the protection of the powerful arm of the state.  Secondly, social policy thinkers became aware for the first time that the apparently unequivocal link between social expenditure and equality in society was in some cases failing to produce the desired results (Lowe; 2005).  Above all, this opinion was formulated through a wholesale reassessment of the analytical factors involved in determining the presence of inequality.  During the nineteenth century poverty studies like that carried out by Joseph Rowntree had focused on unequal wealth distribution and the social inequality that occurred from lack of wealth (Alcock; 2003).  However, during the 1960s the onus changed from a focus on social inequality to that of social exclusion.  In theory, the welfare state was intended to meet the basic needs of all those unable to provide subsistence for themselves.  However, evidence discovered my research pioneers such as Brian Adel Smith and Peter Townsend highlighted the fact that there existed considerable variations of access to the services and provisions that personified the basis of the welfare state (Becker and Bryman; 2004).  Moreover, such exclusion from state provision often depended on factors such as marital status, gender and race. David Donnison, another leading social policy researcher of the 1960s exemplified this progression by asserting that the people suffering social exclusion and the resultant poverty were, “the new comers to the city, the furnished tenants who did not get re-housed in slum clearance schemes, the blacks who did not get their fair share of the jobs filled by the employment services, the lone parents who were given a low priority for council housing…”. (Donnison, 1982; p. 126).  Thus, in some cases the welfare state was failing to provide the comprehensive universal provision that it was originally intended to do.

As suggested above, the British post war consensus dominated general political outlook for thirty years after 1945.  However, this consensus was to encounter concerted opposition from the mid 1970s onwards (Dorey; 1995).  Indeed, by the early 1980s consensus politics had ceased to exist.  This change in ideological outlook in social policy came about for a number of reasons, but in political terms it was due almost entirely to a reassessment of Conservative Party policy under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher.

Above all, by the mid 1970s the effectiveness of Keynesian demand economics and mixed economy were beginning to falter.  The large nationalised industries such as coal and steel were viewed as very inefficient and a huge cost to the tax payer.  Moreover, the ability of militant union activity to destabilise elected governments was becoming a serious concern, particularly in relation to the Labour governments of the late 1970s (Lowe; 2005).  Furthermore, although the welfare state had been established in order to allow people to better themselves in economic and social terms, the increasing presence of welfare dependency was argued to be doing the opposite in many cases (Alcock; 2003).  As such, just as in 1945 a widespread opinion gained preponderance that a wholesale reassessment of British economic and social policy was needed.

Above all, this reassessment once again centered on the question of to what extent the state should take an active part in the lives of ordinary people.  In economic terms, the new Conservative government elected in 1979 was determined that the era of big state involvement should be brought to and end.  As such, from 1979 the Conservatives systematically set about dismantling the nationalisation measures enacted by Labour between 1945 and 1951 (Dorey; 1995).  This enormous shift in policy was formed on the basis that the free market was more capable of providing effective and efficient economic results than that offered by government direction.  Furthermore, it was felt that the benefits that could be derived from free markets economics could also be applied in relation to national social policy (Glennerster; 2007).

Above all, it was the focus on efficiency that ultimately led to Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s to establish quasi markets in social policy.  As free market business was ultimately concerned with the acquisition of profit, it was hugely effective at maximising resource potential and minimising excess waste and inefficiency.  However, the foundation of the welfare state was based on the premise of universalist conceptions of public provision and public service.  Thus, the application of quasi markets in social policy was a response to the need for greater efficiency in Britain’s welfare system whilst simultaneously ensuring that the state continued to provide for the requirements of those suffering difficulties (Alcock; 2003).

The above discussion highlights the extent to which the Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s fundamentally altered the nature of British social policy.  As such, just as the Conservative governments were required to alter their theoretical outlook in the 1950s; it could be argue that the same has been the case for Labour in the years from 1997 onwards.  Therefore, one must firstly fully appreciate the lasting influence that Margaret Thatcher’s policy prescriptions have had government social policy in the last ten years (Powell; 2002).    As such, it is certainly the case that ‘New Labour’ under the direction of Tony Blair did not revert to the ideological polices adopted by Labour governments between the 1950s and 1970s.  Above all, the most lasting impact of the 1980s can be seen in relation to the primacy given to market forces and their ability to effectively undertake government directed welfare provisions.  Thus, New Labour has in some cases responded to the ideological shift of the last two decades by adopting a quasi market position in relation to welfare provision.  However, we must be careful not to exaggerate the extent of this ideological convergence and therefore highlight ways in which New Labour social policy since 1997 in many ways differs from anything seen before (Powell; 2002).

Above all, a key assumption on which New Labour social policy has rested lies in the need to enact widespread welfare reforms that invigorate the welfare state for the twenty first century.  As we have seen, during the years of consensus politics state welfare provision was primarily based on the concept of ensuring greater equality.  However, as suggested above, in recent years there have been widespread accusations that the welfare state in many cases serves to create dependency and thus compound issues such as inequality and social exclusion.  As such, Labour reforms since 1997 have been heavily based on the wish to remove large-scale welfare dependency by getting more people off benefits and into work.  This drive is personified by the concept of RIO (Responsibility, Inclusion and Opportunity) which has largely directed New Labours’ attempt to establish a ‘third way’ in British politics (Powell; 2002).

In 1997 New Labour was acutely aware and very concerned about the increase in inequality witnessed as a result of eighteen years of right wing social policy ideas.  Above all, this inequality manifested itself in terms of widespread income disparity in many parts of the country.   In short, the gap between rich and poor had significantly increased under Conservative rule.  However, the response New Labour proposed to this problem differed in a number of respects from those adopted by the party before 1994.   Prior to Tony Blair’s election as Labour leader in 1994 it was deemed that income inequality was best dealt with through traditional methods of using taxation as a means to redistribute wealth via benefits.  However, after 1994 this focus altered from one of redistribution of wealth to one of redistribution of opportunity (Alcock; 2003). New Labour aimed to reduce inequality by addressing the exclusionary forces that inhibited certain people in society from advancement.  Therefore, since 1997 there has been a systematic attempt to address issues pertaining to social exclusion as it is here that the true roots of inequality were considered to be found.  Moreover, in addition to reducing exclusion and inequality, if successful this new direction would simultaneously counter the hugely problematic issue of welfare dependency and the impact it was having on the functional ability of the welfare state to perform its task.

Therefore, attacking the root causes of social exclusion have been the mark of the third way since 1997.  On the whole, this process has been dominated by action in three areas; training, education and employment (Alcock; 2003).  Naturally, these three concerns are linked.  Better and more effective education and training programmes leads to greater employment potential and thus greater economic progression.  As such, it is possible to see how over the last ten years New Labour policy aimed at reducing exclusion and the inequality that occurs as a result has been ultimately based on getting people into paid work.  This represents a significant shift in ideological outlook compared to that of previous Labour governments and therefore personifies the measure to which the third way has attempted to offer a new and innovative alternative to the old problems of left and right (Powell; 2002).

Moreover, although it is certainly the case that the market orientated outlook so popular in the Thatcher years have remained an important aspect of government policy since 1997, one must now question whether this is about to change.   Above all, the Keynesian welfare state was formed on the basis of economics.  Keynes argued that government involvement in the economy was essential for economic success and this outlook was naturally adopted in relation to social policy prescriptions.  As we have seen, this conception altered in the 1980s to one of free market economics and the primacy of market forces in all aspects of government policy.   Given this, it is certainly possible to argue that the failure of the major capitalist economies to effectively regulate their financial forces in recent years could bring about a reverse in ideological preponderance.  Above all, the recent global financial crises as reasserted the importance of government in all aspects of economic functions.  This could soon translate from the economic to social policy sphere just as it has done in the past.

Bibliography

Alcock, P. (2003) Social Policy In Britain: Themes and Issues, 2nd edition. London, Macmillan.

Becker, S and Bryman, A. (2004) Understanding Research for Social Policy and Practice: themes, methods and approaches. London: Policy Press.

Donnison, D. (1982) The Politics of Poverty. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Dorey, P. (1995) British Politics Since 1945. London: Blackwell.

Finlayson, G. (1994) Citizen, State and Social Welfare in Britain, 1830-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

George, V. and Wilding, P. (1994) Welfare and Ideology. London, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Glennerster, H. (2007) British Social Policy: 1945 to the present, 3rd edition .Oxford, Blackwell.

Lowe, R. (2005) The Welfare State in Britain since 1945, 3rd Edition. London: Macmillan.

Powell, M. (Ed) (2002) Evaluating New Labour’s Welfare Reforms. Bristol, Policy Press.